inversecondemnation.com

CA6: "The distric court's ripeness determination, in turn, was plainly mistaken"

Before you get too excited by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit's opinion in Catholic Healthcare Int'l, Inc. v. Genoa Twp., No. 22-2139 (Sep. 11, 2023), a spoiler up front: this may be a good ripeness decision, but this isn't a takings case.

But you takings mavens may still want to take a quick look over the opinion for how the court deals with a ripeness argument in a case where the plaintiffs assert the Township violated their rights by denying (twice) its requests for a land use special permit.

The story is about a walking path created by Catholic Healthcare that contains fourteen "Stations of the Cross" "depicting the "story of Christ's last day." Slip op. at 1. The Township insisted that Catholic Healthcare obtain a special use permit, because the Township believed that the trail use is the equivalent of a church.

So Catholic Healthcare sought a special use permit, and twice the Township said no. The Township required removal of the trail. Catholic Health sued, asserting RLUIPA and constitutional claims, and sought a preliminary injunction allowing it to restore the trail. The district court dismissed, concluding among other things, that the RLUIPA claim was not ripe.

The Sixth Circuit rejected that conclusion. Relying on Pakdel, the court concluded that the Township had adopted a "definitive position" on how its land use regulations apply to the plaintiffs' uses and land:

The district court’s ripeness determination, in turn, was plainly mistaken. A claim is unripe when “it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated or indeed may not occur at all.” Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998). In land-use cases, the necessary event is simply that the government has adopted a “definitive position” as to “how the regulations at issue apply to the particular land in question.” Pakdel v. City & County of San Fran., 141 S. Ct. 2226, 2230 (2021) (cleaned up). That has manifestly happened here: the Township has uniformly insisted that the plaintiffs obtain a special land-use permit for their religious displays; the Township Board has twice refused to grant them one, even when presented with an application limited almost entirely to those displays; and the Zoning Board of Appeals denied relief. Moreover, those events have “inflicted an actual, concrete injury” on plaintiffs, id., because the Township has actually forced them to remove the religious displays from their property.

Slip op. at 7. The district court held the claim was not ripe because in addition to receiving two permit application denials from the Township, Catholic Health had not also complied with the Township's administrative processes.

The court noted that "[t]he district court's mistake was to conflate ripeness (sometimes called 'finality' in this context) and exhaustion" when the district court held that the Township had not taken a final position until Catholic Healthcare had gone past the permit denial(s) and chased further administrative procedures. Slip op. at 8.

The Sixth Circuit held that one "no" is enough, and you don't really need a truly final decision (in other words, a decision that comes at the end of an administrative review process), but a court only need understand that the government is "committed to a position." Id. (quoting Pakdel, 141 S. Ct. at 2230). That this position might change later is of no consequence.

The opinion also made note of a good point - the ripeness requirement in these kind of cases (also takings cases) is there not to run the property owner through a maze of hurdles, but to ensure that the injury to the plaintiff is concrete enough. As the court held, "this case comes to us after Genoa Township has taken a definitive position, again and again, to the plaintiffs' concrete injury. Their claim is ripe." Slip op. at 8.

We think there are two good lessons to take from this one:

1. A reminder that ripeness does not require exhaustion. This isn't so much the "final decision" rule, but the "definitive position" rule. The Court meant what it said in Pakdel when it cautioned that the ripeness requirement is "relatively modest," and does not require exhaustion and crossing off all alternatives to get to a government's "yes." All it requires is a single "no."

2. The ripeness requirement is there so that courts can have confidence that the plaintiff has really been injured, which itself is a relatively modest requirement.

We suggest keeping those two things in mind in your next ripeness argument.

Catholic Healthcare, Int'l, Inc. v. Genoa Twp., No. 22-2139 (6th Cir. Sep. 11, 2023)

Can One Government Official Really Hold Up Necessary Water Uses? The Hawaii Public Water Trust In Action

According to the County, this is an "industrial" use,
incompatible with "agricultural" zoning

Note: sorry, this is one of those longer posts, but the topic is a serious one, so we felt it needed more than our usual cursory treatment.

How Can That Be?

We've been somewhat reluctant to post too much on the legal aspects of the Maui wildfires (other than to comment on the first lawsuit), just because it still seems "too soon." The focus should be on aiding the victims and helping those who want to rebuild to do so, and not on premature blamestorming (see also this), legal theories, and  the "opportunities" this disaster presents (see also this, this.and this).

But we did want to clear one thing up. There are a lot of stories (see here, here, and here, for example), about the State of Hawaii official -- the Deputy Director of the Commission on Water Resource Management and an employee of the State Department of Land and Natural Resources -- who allegedly refused for several hours to release water as requested to fill reservoirs, until first obtaining the approval of a taro farmer.

A lot of the reaction has been of the "how could this be?" variety. How can a government official refuse to release water needed for fire suppression? How is it that a private kalo (taro) farmer needed to be asked for approval? Can this be accurate?

Short story: yes.

This is exactly how Hawaii's water law is designed to work, and is the system functioning as intended. And please don't get us wrong -- we're not at all suggesting that working-as-designed has resulted in a system that actually, you know, works. No, we are being purely descriptive, not normative, and just laying out our experience about how Hawaii water law plays out day-to-day in all its intended glory.

Bottom line: the water law regime in Hawaii is designed so that a government official can hold up water uses -- even if that use is to fight fires.

No Private Rights

First, it is essential to understand that conflicts over water use are not a new thing, and have been ongoing for centuries. Second, you must realize that all water in Hawaii -- and by that we mean all water -- fresh, salt, surface, ground, runoff, freshet, riparian, stream, ocean, lake, you-name-it -- is owned by the public, and administered by every agency at every level of state and municipal government under a trust-beneficiary model.

This approach is unique to Hawaii. But how did it develop?

It wasn't always this way, and for more than a century, Hawaii's water law -- mostly developed though court cases -- followed its English and American counterparts with a few local modifications. The law recognized private rights to "own" and use water, subject to the rights of others.

But in the 1960's and 1970's, the activist Hawaii Supreme Court began altering the governing law, ultimately concluding that water resources are (and have always been) incapable of private ownership -- despite a century of Hawaii common law that seemed to hold otherwise. The court began developing the idea that water is a public resource and consequently is impressed with a "public trust."

In a clever bit of sleight-of-law, the court held that the "public trust' doctrine was adopted by the Kingdom courts in the 19th Century, and then "later decisions of this court confirmed the acceptance of the public trust doctrine in this jurisdiction." Kelly v. 1250 Oceanside Partners, 140 P.3d 985, 1002 (Haw. 2006). The problem with that conclusion is that the "public trust" doctrine referred to in the 19th Century Kingdom cases was the traditional public trust -- the one that has its roots in Roman and English law -- the public's right to use navigable waters for activities such as commerce, navigation, and fishing. It had nothing to do with ownership of the water, or water rights, or the government's authority to control and regulate uses. Instead, the newly created "public trust" doctrine the Hawaii Supreme Court was referring to was much broader, and applied to all water whether navigable or not, and all uses whether related to commerce or navigation.

National Property Scholar: You Keep Using the Term "Public Trust." I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

As renown property and water rights scholar Thomas Merrill wrote:

The public trust doctrine burst forth in Hawaii, in a big time way, as part of a series of highly controversial decisions by the state supreme court involving water rights. The rights in question did not involve the public right of access to navigable waters for commerce and fishing -- the classic issue in Illinois Central and Oahu Railway. Instead, these decisions have involved the rights to consumptive uses of water for purposes like irrigation or public drinking water systems -- what the Hawaii courts call "water resources" law. The public trust doctrine has never been applied to water resources in this sense in Illinois or New York. Indeed, the only other state besides Hawaii that has extended the doctrine in this fashion is California. And even there, the famous Mono Lake decision involved the diversion of waters by the city of Los Angeles from tributaries of a navigable lake, so the diversion had an impact on navigation. In Hawaii, the connection to navigation has been cut altogether.

See Merrill, The Public Trust Doctrine: Some Jurisprudential Variations and Their Implications, 38 U. Haw. L. Rev. 261, 276-277 (2016) (footnotes omitted). (For a much different view of this, see this story.)

In altering the longstanding rules, the Hawaii Supreme Court based its rulings on, among other things, a 1978 amendment to the Hawaii Constitution, which, according to the court, publicized all water resources:

The State has an obligation to protect, control and regulate the use of Hawaii's water resources for the benefit of its people.

The legislature shall provide for a water resources agency which, as provided by law, shall set overall water conservation, quality and use policies; define beneficial and reasonable uses; protect ground and surface water resources, watersheds and natural stream environments; establish criteria for water use priorities while assuring appurtenant rights and existing correlative and riparian uses and establish procedures for regulating all uses of Hawaii's water resources.

Haw. Const. art. XI, § 7.

The long and the short of it is that all Hawaii water is incapable of private ownership. (So if anyone tells you that there are what you think of as "water rights" in Hawaii, they are in our opinion mistaken. Or at least the concept of a substantial private interest in water is markedly different in Hawaii than elsewhere.) In case you are wondering, yes, there have been challenges to this altered water regime as a taking, both legislative and judicial. But those cases mostly went nowhere, with the most significant challenge crashing and burning on the shoals of Williamson County's ripeness doctrine.

The Regulatory Regime

Next, after effectively publicizing private water rights, the Hawaii Supreme Court imposed a regulatory system -- again based on this new "public [water] trust" concept -- on how the State and its subsidiaries and agencies were to "control and regulate" water (as that term is used in article XI, noted above). The obligation to control and regulate water use extends to all uses of water, no matter how de minimis the use, or how necessary (such as fire suppression).

If you think we might be exaggerating about this, we offer an example (other than the Maui fire situation), from one of our own cases from when we were in private practice.

Setting the Stage for Lahaina

In Kauai Springs, Inc. v. Planning Comm'n of the Cnty. of Kauai, 324 P.3d 951 (Haw. 2014), "Kauai Springs" was a small, family owned business that purchased approximately 750 gallons per day of water emanating from a natural spring on the island of Kauai. For more than a century, thousands of gallons of water per day had naturally flowed out of the spring, where it was channeled into an above-ground pipeline to irrigate sugar fields several miles from the source. The water wasn't pumped out or down -- gravity did the work. When the sugar plantations went away in more recent times, a small portion of the water in the pipe was used by several nearby homes as drinking water, but otherwise, thousands of gallons of water per day emptied from the pipeline into a nearby stream bed where it eventually flowed into the ocean.

Sensing an opportunity, a Kauai family obtained a license from the owner of the spring to capture some of that water, ensure it was up to USDA water quality standards, and bottle it in those 5-gallon plastic bottles that go on top of a dispenser unit. The family would deliver these to homes and offices on the island.

The problems began when someone dropped dime and reported to the Kauai County Planning Department that Kauai Springs was making an "industrial" use of land zoned for agriculture. Sure enough, planning officials paid a visit and issued a notice of violation and a shut down order.

Kauai Springs sought after-the-fact permits allowing its use as either a special use, or as a conditional use. You land users understand that when an unpermitted use is kind of like a permitted use, and really won't have much of an impact on the land, then very often the owner may be allowed to make an otherwise unpermitted use. That was the case here, where Kauai Springs argued that putting water into 5 gallon bottles at its facility (see photo above) was not that much different than typical agricultural uses, and had no significant different impacts on the land or the surrounding properties.

But the County of Kauai denied the permits. Why? Not because the building (see above photo) or the low-impact activity of bottling water are incompatible with agricultural zoning. Rather, it was because Kauai Springs was bottling water, and it had not proven that using 750 gallons per day from the pipeline flowing thousands of gallons per day into the ocean would not significantly impact the water resources of the County of Kauai.

You read that right. Seven-hundred-and-fifty gallons per day represented .22% (that's 0.0022 for you who are mathematically-challenged like me) of the total daily output of the spring. So minuscule that when we tried to create a demonstrative exhibit to show how little this was "impacting" water resources, it was impossible because in order to get the X-axis (Kauai Springs' useage) large enough to be visible, the Y-axis (total volume) would not fit on any reasonably-sized poster board - it would have needed to be yards long. 

Additionally, the County said that until the State Public Utilities Commission and the State Commission on Water Resources had weighed in, it was premature for the County to grant a zoning permit that might affect the County's water resources. Never mind that both agencies did not have subject matter jurisdiction over this, and had told the County so.

An Already Long Story Shorter

By the time the case reached the Hawaii Supreme Court, the first big issue was whether under the Hawaii public water trust, county agencies like the Kauai County Planning Department and Planning Commission have an obligation to make searching inquiries into whether the grant of zoning permits might affect the County's water resources. After all, neither agency has any expertise in the area of water regulation. Their expertise, if any, is in land use, not water and hydrology. Surely the public trust cannot be read as requiring every state and local agency to make its own independent determination about water resources, and in the case of Kauai Springs, the County agencies could simply adopt the views of the State PUC and the State Commission on Water Resource Management that there was nothing here to worry about.

The second question was who has the burden of demonstrating that use of 750 gallons per day would or would not detrimentally impact the County's water resources. While that might seem like a common-sense determination in light of the overall amount (.22%), the court was asked whether the County could deny the zoning permits on the basis that Kauai Springs had not met its burden to show to the satisfaction of the County that 750 gpd would not have a serious impact on the County's overall water resources. (Remember, Kauai bills itself as one of the "wettest spots on Earth.")

Could the County rely on the precautionary principle writ large? Does Hawaii's public water trust really enshrine the principle of inaction in the face of any doubt?

The Precautionary Principle Reaches the Parody Stage

Bottom line: yes, it does.

The Hawaii Supreme Court held that every agency and official in Hawaii -- state and county -- has a duty under Hawaii's public water trust to protect water resources. It doesn't matter whether the agency has any type of interest or expertise in water regulation, or the decision it is being asked to make (remember that Kauai Springs was asking the County for zoning permits, not asking its permission to use the water).

The court rejected the extreme hypothetical we posed - does the public water trust require that the local DMV make an inquiry about whether issuing a commercial driver license to the driver of a water company truck? After all, issuing a CDL to someone who drives a truck to deliver water might affect the public's water resources. Aw, come on that is ridiculous you say? What business does the DMV have in regulation of water uses? Every business, the court held. The public water trust is a sacred obligation, and the court held that the Hawaii Constitution's language ("The State has an obligation to protect, control and regulate the use of Hawaii's water resources for the benefit of its people.") means that the State itself, every State agency, and every municipality and municipal agency has an obligation to "protect, control and regulate" water. Yes, even the DMV.

Moreover, to fulfill this duty, these officials and agencies cannot rely on the conclusions of other -- perhaps more appropriate and expert -- agencies and officials. Thus, the Kauai Planning Department and the Planning Commission could not consider their public trust duties fulfilled by noting that the State Commission on Water Resources and the state PUC had both disclaimed any interest in Kauai Springs. The County agencies have an obligation to make their own independent determinations.

Next, the court concluded that the public trust duty is fulfilled by these agencies and officials if they rely on the precautionary principle to place the burden on the user of water and do nothing if the user can't disprove that its use will not adversely impact water resources. In the absence of convincing proof of no impact, the government as the trustee of the public water trust can deny, deny, deny any request for action.

Thus, the County properly denied Kauai Springs' zoning permits.

How it Works

This regime works as it intended (to slow or stop development, to give anyone who might object to a use or action a way to challenge it, and to not act when in doubt (which there almost always is)). But you can see how this regime can be deployed selectively. For example, after the Supreme Court issued its opinion, a liquor manufacturing facility across the highway from Kauai Springs sailed through the zoning and permitting process without a squeak of objection even though it makes its product from water from the exact same water source that resulted in the problem with Kauai Springs, and uses a ton more water. But did anyone even ask whether making liquor (whose main ingredient is water) would affect water resources and insist that the producer disprove an adverse impact on Kauai's water resources? 

No, and there's the rub. The way this works is that officials and agencies have nearly total discretion to apply the exacting public water trust standards ad hoc. There's no requirement of comprehensiveness, or that every action be evaluated under the public water trust. Only a requirement that every agency and official do so when prompted (either sua sponte, or by third-party objectors who object to the underlying action).  

In short, if Water User "A" can stay off the radar, no sweat. Nobody seems to want to challenge the liquor producer, or new hotels (which use a ton of water daily without any restrictions), or the new car wash. But if someone drops a dime on Water User "B," or B ends up on its own catching a government official's attention, then the Kauai Springs principles spring into action:

If there's doubt, do nothing

In our opinion, that's what looks like might have gone on when that State of Hawaii official did not immediately act to release water for fire suppression (if that is indeed accurate, as the news stories report). You can see how government agencies and officials -- used to denying, delaying, and deferring -- are not really that used to acting quickly and decisively to release the precious public resource of water, even when the situation dictates quick action. After all, a wrong move will invite claims that the official -- a trustee of the trust with fiduciary responsibilities to the public to preserve, protect, and conserve the resource -- breached this sacred duty.

In short, Hawaii's water law is very conservative: go slow, do nothing, be sure before you act; there's no downside to doing nothing.

To answer this post's headline's question, "Can one government official really hold up necessary water uses?"

You bet. That's the Hawaii public water trust working as it was intended. There isn't a necessity, or let's-save-some-lives exception, at least just yet.

Sadly, it looks to us like this just had some devastating consequences.

Kauai Springs, Inc. v. Planning Comm'n of the Cnty. of Kauai, No. SCWC-29440 (Haw. Feb. 28, 2014)

CA8: 11th Amendment Trumps The Fifth Amendment - Just Because Just Compensation Is A "Self-Executing" Federal Remedy Doesn't Mean You Get To Come To *Federal* Court

Remember after Knick when we predicted that the Supreme Court's opening back up the federal courthouse doors wasn't the end of the procedural gamesmanship, but merely the opening of a new chapter? That it was time to dust off your old Federal Courts hornbook, because things like the Eleventh Amendment, Rooker/Feldman, abstention, and similar, were going to spring up as the way to avoid the merits of takings claims? That's we're going to be experiencing Williamson County, Phase 2?

Here's more proof (as if you needed it).

In EEE Minerals, LLC v. North Dakota, No. 22-2159 (Aug. 30, 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a takings claim against the State of North Dakota was barred from being litigated in federal court because the State can't be sued in federal court - even if the right to just compensation is self-executing.

This is a mineral rights fight, and the property owner claimed that when the North Dakota legislature (allegedly) shifted the historical high water mark on the Missouri River -- which presumptively gave the State mineral rights that the owner claimed belonged to it -- the State took property for public use.

In December 2020, EEE Minerals and Vohs sued North Dakota, the Lands Board, and the Commissioner of the Board in federal court. They claimed that the North Dakota statute was preempted by the Flood Control Act, and that the defendants had taken property from EEE Minerals and Vohs in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs sought damages, declarations that the North Dakota statute was preempted by federal law and that an unconstitutional taking had occurred, and an injunction prohibiting the defendants from claiming ownership of the mineral interests under state law.

Slip op. at 4. The district court dismissed.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed. We won't go into the question of whether the federal Flood Control Act preempted the North Dakota statute, but will leave it to those of you interested in that issue to digest pages 5-7. Short answer: no, it didn't.

The takings stuff begins on page 7 of the slip opinion. That claim fared no better:

Vohs next asserts that North Dakota, the Lands Board, and the Commissioner committed a taking of property without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment as incorporated against the States. She contends that when the State defined its mineral rights based on the historical ordinary high water mark, the State took mineral rights that were reserved to EEE Minerals and Vohs without providing compensation. We conclude that Vohs’s claims for damages and injunctive relief are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Slip op. at 7.

The court rejected the owner's argument that because the obligation to provide just compensation is self-executing, an owner whose property has been taken is entitled to seek that compensation in federal court. Go press your federal claim in state court, property owners:

The Supreme Court has not directly addressed the interplay between the Fifth Amendment and the Eleventh Amendment. But in Reich v. Collins, 513 U.S. 106 (1994), the Court addressed an analogous situation involving a self-executing right under the Due Process Clause. The Court explained that even though the Fourteenth Amendment provides a right to a remedy for taxes levied in violation of federal law, “the sovereign immunity States enjoy in federal court, under the Eleventh Amendment, does generally bar tax refund claims from being brought in that forum.” Id. at 109-10. Instead, state courts were required to entertain suits against a State to recover taxes unlawfully exacted.

The same conclusion applies to a claim under the Takings Clause. There is no dispute that Vohs may bring her [federal] takings claim in North Dakota state court.

Slip op. at 8-9.

But what about prospective equitable relief (the Ex parte Young "exception" to the usual Eleventh Amendment rule)? The court wasn't having any of that because it concluded that the owner's claim for injunctive relief was just a claim for damages in disguise. "Vohs simply repackages her claim for monetary relief as a request for an injunction that cures past injuries and requires the payment of just compensation. This reformulated request for retrospective relief is likewise barred by the Eleventh Amendment." Slip op. at 9.

Stay tuned for more.

EEE Minerals, LLC v. North Dakota, No. 22-2159 (8th Cir. Aug 30, 2023)

ALI-CLE's Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference (Feb 1-3, 2024, New Orleans): Why Attend? Here's Why.

Why is it, you ask, that the ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference (scheduled next February 1-3, 2024, in New Orleans) is an event that seems to be growing in popularity and attendance. In recent years, we have standing room only in the Conference halls, and have sold out the hotel block. After all, this is a pretty niche area of law. So what gives?

When we were in Austin earlier this year, we thought it might be nice to try and answer that question. We asked Conference participants why they come, year-after-year (and in Austin, despite massive travel disruptions). Yes, it is the various venues (Nashville, Austin, Scottsdale, Palm Springs, to name a few recent locations), and yes, it is the excellent and useful programming.

But as we suspected it is more than that. As the above video notes, the consistent response from our participants about why the attend is the participants. The faculty and other attendees, the vendors. The collegiality, the chance to renew long-standing friendships, and especially the chance to make new friends and colleagues who share our passion for this area of law. The welcoming environment, and our desire to have lawyers and other professionals new to this area of law or new to the Bar feel at home and welcomed.

I can personally attest to that one, having been welcomed to a Conference long ago by Toby Brigham, who although he was one of the Chairs of the event, made it a point to notice that I was a new attendee, and to introduce me around to the "old hands."

We have also made a big effort in the last few years to include a range of professionals from various perspectives, including lawyers, legal academics, jurists, appraisers and MAIs, planners, right of way and relocation experts, and jury and trial consultants. Family members also welcome (there are a lot of "adjacent" social and networking events, and families are welcome as long as they don't mind a lot of "shop talk"). Our program is a mix of practical and substantive sessions.

We also have a special track on the first day of the Conference designed as a crash course in Eminent Domain law ("Condemnation 101"), which is a good place for an overview and introduction to the practice, or as a refresher course for those with more time under your belt.

In short, we try and make the Conference not just a place to learn the latest in eminent domain and related topics, but somewhere you can return to each year, and feel welcome.

So if you have not attended before, give us a try! We'd love to see you in New Orleans in just a few months. Registration and hotel reservation now open. Sign up now, and don't miss out.

Ohio S Ct Rejects Attempt To Import Regulatory Takings Ripeness Into Physical Takings

A short (but interesting) one from the Ohio Supreme Court. In State ex rel. Balunek v. Marchbanks, No. 2021-1469 (July 25, 2023), the court held that a physical takings claim alleging the DOT cut off access to property was ripe, even though the owner might have applied for permit to gain access.

As part of a road construction project, ODOT removed and didn't replace two driveways to the property, landlocking it. ODOT admitted it did so, but didn't include the lost access in the compensation by arguing "that access could be [re]established if Balunek obtains a 'street opening permit' from Cleveland. Slip op. at 3.

The owner sued, seeking a writ to compel ODOT to formally condemn the access. Remember that Ohio does not recognize the usual inverse condemnation remedy, but in situations where an owner asserts its property has been taken and the government has not paid compensation, the owner seeks an order to compel the government to formally take.

The court had no problem concluding that ODOT wiping out the property's access and landlocking it was a taking:

{¶ 12} Balunek has clearly and convincingly established that ODOT took property beyond that for which it has already commenced appropriation proceedings. Prior to ODOT’s construction project, the property had access to abutting roads through driveways and an easement. ODOT, however, destroyed the property’s driveways that connected it to East 93rd Street and did not replace those driveways or provide alternative curb-cut access. The project also eliminated the property’s easement access to Woodland Avenue. The property is thus currently inaccessible to lawful vehicular traffic; to obtain access, Balunek would need to apply for and be granted a street-opening permit from Cleveland and then rebuild the driveways himself. ODOT’s construction project has deprived the property of all access to an abutting roadway and thus constitutes a taking.

Slip op. at 4-5.

The court next dealt with ODOT's "sole argument that Balunek is not entitled to a writ of mandamus," slip op. at 5,which asserted it hadn't taken the property because the owner might obtain a street opening permit from the city. This was not described as a "ripeness" argument, but anyone familiar with regulatory takings litigation recognizes it as such (the government asserting that a court can't tell whether the defendant has taken the owner's uses of property, because there hasn't been a decision on what uses are allowed, if any). Here, ODOT asserted there could not be a taking of access, because the owner might get access, if only it asked: "ODOT argues that requiring a property owner to obtain a permit to use his property does not constitute a taking." Slip op. at 6.

ODOT relied upon a case in which the court held that the denial of a mining permit was not a taking. Requiring you to get a permit before you can use your land isn't necessarily a taking, because -- as the old saw goes -- the existence of a permit system implies that a permit might be granted. This is the same thing, right?

No, the court held, this is much different. The requirement that you seek a permit before you can allege a taking (aka ripeness) only works for those cases where the denial of a permit is alleged to be a taking. So the argument might work in a case where the city denied the owner permits to build driveways. Here by contrast, ODOT eliminated existing access to the property, and the owner is alleging that is a taking:

In contrast, here, the taking has already occurred—ODOT eliminated the property’s access to abutting streets by removing its driveways. ODOT argues that an obligation to compensate for a taking is somehow extinguished if the landowner can, at his own cost, potentially obtain a permit to access his property from a roadway; ODOT has cited no authority for such a proposition.

Slip op. at 6-7.

Seems about right to us.

State ex rel. Balunek v. Marchbanks, No. 2021-1469 (Ohio July 25, 2023) (per curiam)

Tex App: Nollan/Dolan Challenge To Annexation Fees Not Ripe: You Have To Apply For Annexation To Find Out What The Fee Will Be

The city told an owner whose three parcels were outside of the city's jurisdiction that if it wanted the city's permission to replat into 74 parcels, it would need city water and sewer service to each of the proposed lots.

So the owner asked to connect to the city's water and sewer system (deliberately overbuilt to account for future users, apparently), and in response, the city told the developer that it would have to do two things. First, it would have to contribute to the cost of building the system by purchasing water/sewer chits (our term). When the system was built, the city anticipated future connections and created a chit system by which future connections would help pay for the cost of construction. Second, in order to purchase these chits, the buyer's property must be included within the city's jurisdiction. And that meant a voluntary annexation. Annexation does not come free, because a city ordinance set the price tag of annexation between $220k - $350k.

The developer was ok with buying the chits, but not with paying the annexation fees, and sued the city. It argued it had a right to purchase the chits, and the city's ordinance worked a taking under the Texas Constitution because the city had not shown an essential nexus and proportionality between the fee and the annexation exaction (apparently, the unconstitutional conditions test is the same under Texas' constitutional law as the Nollan/Dolan/Koontz federal standards).

In Consolidated Towne East Holdings, LLC v. City of Lardeo, No. 04-22-00130-CV (July 12, 2023), the Texas Court of Appeals held that Consolidated's takings challenge was not ripe. The costs were not yet "authoritatively set." Slip op. at 10. You have to apply for annexation to find out what the actual fee will be:

Consolidated’s takings claim presents an unusual challenge. Unlike in Nollan, Dolan, and Stafford Estates, in which the conditions required for the permits and plats were authoritatively determined by the government entity wishing to impose the exaction, here, the conditions the City requires for annexation and the annexation fees have not been finally determined. See Dolan, 512 U.S. at 379–83 (permit conditioned on dedication of property for use as public greenway and path); Nollan, 483 U.S. at 828–29 (permit conditioned on creation of public easement); Stafford Estates, 135 S.W.3d at 623–24 (plats conditioned on rebuilding road with concrete). The City argues that, by failing to apply for annexation, Consolidated has deprived the City of an ability to consider and rule on actual costs related to annexation. The result, according to the City, is that “actual or roughly proportional costs cannot be established,” and it asserts Consolidated is seeking an advisory opinion about hypothetical costs.

Slip op. at 9.

The court also rejected the owner's argument that the annexation fees (whatever they might be) have no nexus to water and sewer hook up, because the nexus has already been accounted for in the price of a hook-up chit. Not so, held the court, because the annexation fee covers other things: "While annexation is required to obtain [chits], the purpose of annexation, according to the City, is not coextensive with the purpose of [chits], and, therefore, the cost to annex addresses different government interests than the cost for [chits]." Id.

So let's see if we get this right: you have to apply for annexation so the city can determine how much it is going to charge for annexation? Yes. According to the city:

Although the costs may vary from year to year, they are applied using calculations based on the level of development selected by the developer and the development plans. The calculations apply to all annexation applicants based on, among other things, lot size, number of lots, and whether the property will be for residential or commercial use.

Slip op. at 10.

That was enough for the court. No final decision applying the rule to the owner's use and development plans, so any takings challenge is premature:

We stress that Consolidated’s takings claim complains principally about annexation costs. In other words, Consolidated does not complain about annexation alone. In fact, its attorney stated at the hearing on the parties’ motions for summary judgment: “There is no dispute that the City certainly can annex property within its extraterritorial jurisdiction within its discretion. [Consolidated] has no objection to that. [Consolidated] has no objection to being annexed by the City in that capacity.” However, because we do not know the cost to annex, we cannot perform the fact-specific, rough proportionality inquiry required by Nollan and Dolan.

Slip op. at 11-12 (footnote omitted).

Consolidated Towne East Holdings, LLC v. City of Laredo, No. 04-22-00130-CV (Tex. Ct. App. July 12, 2023)

CAFED: Just Because The Govt Seized Property As Evidence Doesn't Mean It Can Keep It Without Compensation

Here's the latest in an issue we've been following.

Let's say the government thinks you have committed a crime (or someone else has). To investigate, it seizes property as evidence or potential evidence. But after things wrap up and it no longer needs the property as evidence, the government doesn't return it to its owner. Taking or no taking?

Some courts say it could be a taking. Others say no.

In Jenkins v. United States, No. 22-1378 (June 28, 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said maybe. Or at least it isn't not a taking simply because the government was lawfully exercising its police power. And if there may be open questions about the whether the owner sought recovery of the property through available procedures or outright abandoned it, then a court entering summary judgment for the government isn't right.

Most of the facts of the case are clear: the DEA thought Jenkins was "involved in a drug conspiracy." In the course of its investigation, it seized two vehicles registered to Jenkins' mother, but used exclusively by Jenkins. It towed the vehicles to a private impound lot and put a "hold" on them (as the court noted, "[i]t is not entirely clear what a 'hold' is, but the parties appear to agree that it had the effect of giving the government control over the vehicles and preventing the impound lot from doing anything with the vehicles, such as selling the cars without the government's authorization.").

Jenkins eventually pled guilty to a drug charge and got a sentence of 252 months (21 years). "On October 21, 2013, between Mr. Jenkins’ guilty plea and his sentencing, the government contends that the hold on the vehicles was released." Slip op. at 3. The impound lot wrote to the titleholder (mom), telling her that if the accumulated fees were paid, the cars could be reclaimed. Mom said she never got this notice. Jenkins never got any notice at all, and the government didn't do anything to let him know beyond telling him in the underlying criminal case that he could go pick up the vehicles. And finally, the lot sent another (final) notice to mom to come get the cars in 10 days, or we're going to consider them abandoned. Mom "did not receive the letter because she was incarcerated." Slip op. at 4. Yikes. 

Jenkins had actual notice apparently, and tried to get the government to give back the cars under a special procedure available in criminal cases (Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) if you are interested). But even though the government told him that the cars were available in the impound lot and the court dismissed as moot Jenkins' separate claim that the government was wrongfully holding his cars (because the government indicated it was going to give back the cars), apparently the cars had been sold and the proceeds kept by the impound lot "apparently at least in part to satisfy towing and storage charges." Id. (

Next up, a Little Tucker Act physical takings claim in the district court. Yes, Little Tucker Act because these were used cars, not Sonny Crockett high-profile drug dealer cars. Jenkins threw in a due process claim for good measure and sought damages as a remedy for that. The district court dismissed the due process claim because there's nothing that allows you to get damages against the federal government for due process violations, and granted the government summary judgment on the takings claim on the basis that the cars were seized and retained by a valid exercise of police power (yes, we know the federal government arguably doesn't have general police powers, but work with us here), and there can be no takings claim in these situations. 

The appeal was transferred from the regional circuit (CA8) to the Federal Circuit (you CFC/CAFED mavens understand that process), which disagreed with the dismissal of the takings claim.

First, it made short work of the district court's rationale. Having a valid reason for the seizure and keeping does not insulate the government from takings liability:

The district court held that there was no takings liability because the government’s action was a lawful exercise of the police power. In this respect we think the district court erred. To be sure, as the government points out, we have consistently held that the government is not liable under the takings clause for property seizure during a criminal investigation or for damage to such property in its custody, even if the decrease in value renders the property essentially worthless. None of these cases, however suggests or even considers whether the police power exception immunizes the government from liability for failing to return property legally seized after the government’s need to retain the property ends.

While the United States’ police power may insulate it from liability for an initial seizure, there is no police power exception that insulates the United States from takings liability for the period after seized property is no longer needed for criminal proceedings. In this respect, we agree with the Third Circuit in Frein v. Pennsylvania State Police that “[t]hough valid warrants immunize officers who stay within their scope, they are not blank checks,” and once criminal proceedings have concluded the government “needs some justification” to retain the property without compensation. 47 F.4th 247, 252–53 (3d Cir. 2022). Even when the initial seizure and retention of property is properly done pursuant to the police power, the police power does not insulate the government from liability for a taking if the property is not returned after the government interest in retaining the property ceases. The district court erred in concluding that the legitimacy of the initial seizure precluded liability for failure to return the property.

Slip op. at 8-10 (footnotes omitted).

A good lesson, and one that many courts have not learned.

But that wasn't enough to send the case back, and the Federal Circuit concluded the factual record was not developed enough for the district court to make a decision, such as did the government retain the cars itself or did it surrender them to the impound lot? See slip op. at 11. Did the government notify Jenkins of his ability to recover the cars in a Rule 41 proceeding? And what about that "hold," and whether Jenkins abandoned the cars. Slip op. at 13. And finally, was the impound lot the agent of the government when it sold the cars? Slip op. at 14.

So this one is not over. And by the way, the Federal Circuit affirmed the due process dismissal, kind of: "The theory is that an illegal exaction occurred when and if the government transferred the cars to the impound lot. Mr. Jenkins’ problem is that while his pro se complaint generally alleged a due process violation, it nowhere asserted an illegal exaction theory. The district court did not err in dismissing this due process claim for lack of jurisdiction. However, on remand Jenkins may seek leave to amend to assert an illegal exaction claim." Slip op. at 16. 

Jenkins v. United States, No. 22-1378 (Fed. Cir. June 28, 2023)

New Takings Ripeness Cert Petition (Ours): Knowing The Permissible Uses "to a reasonable degree of certainty" Is All You Need For A Claim To Be Ripe

Here's the cert petition, filed last week, in a case we've posted about. See here (Ninth Circuit arguments) and here (en banc petition).

The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a takings claim because (it held) the claim isn't ripe. The government hasn't made up its mind, and just might allow the owners to make some use of their residentially-zoned land (even though the property is also subject to an overlay zone that expressly prohibits residential development). More background here. 

This is one of ours, so we're not going to be saying too much more about it. The petition also lays out the situation.

Here are the Questions Presented:

Randy Ralston and Linda Mendiola (Ralstons) wish to build a retirement home on their residentially-zoned land in San Mateo County, California. However, their property sits entirely within an overlay zone, the Montecito Riparian Corridor (Corridor), which categorically bans residential development. The County nonetheless instructs landowners who wish to build a home to submit their “intention” to the Community Development (Planning) Director and County Counsel, who must undertake a “takings analysis” to decide whether to “override” the Corridor’s absolute ban to prevent a taking. When the Ralstons followed this procedure, the Planning Director and County Counsel responded that there was no justification “to override the Local Coastal Plan limitations on development within wetland and riparian areas in order to accommodate a reasonable economic use.” No procedure exists to challenge this decision. In short, the answer was an unambiguous and unappealable “no.” The Ninth Circuit held that the Planning Director and County Counsel’s response, though they were speaking for the County, was “informal,” and that the Ralstons’ takings claim is ripe only if they submit—and the County formally denies—a Coastal Development Permit application.

The questions presented are:

1. Is a takings claim ripe when the government establishes a mandatory process requiring property owners to ask whether any development on their land is possible, and responds with a definitive and unappealable denial?

2. Are takings complaints subject to a higher pleading standard than other civil rights complaints?

Stay tuned.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Ralston v. County of San Mateo, No. ____ (U.S. June 16, 2023)

CA1: Despite Two Variance Denials, Takings Case Not Ripe Because It Isn't Futile To Try Again

Here's the latest from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on takings ripeness, Haney v. Town of Mashpee, No. 22-1446 (June 6, 2023). 

The case centers on Gooseberry Island, Massachusetts, which is zoned by the Town of Mashpee as R-3. But under the Town's zoning code, any residence must have at least 150 feet of frontage and a paved access roadway within 150 feet.

Which is problematic because Gooseberry Island is, well, an island -- separated from the mainland by a 40 to 80 foot channel depending on the tides. There's no bridge, although you can wade across the channel at low tide. No bridge means no roads, and no roads means no residential development.

So the owner sought variances from the frontage and roadway requirements in 2013. Denied. The road and frontage requirements are about emergency access. Next, the owner sought approvals to build a bridge. If emergency vehicles can get to the island, then maybe we can build roads, and home. The owner proposed a wood bridge, which was opposed by the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, which holds a shellfish grant from the Town in the adjacent water. The Tribe claimed a bridge would adversely impact the shellfish habitat. Consequently, the bridge proposal was rejected the Town under state and municipal environmental law.

The owner sought review by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Also denied, because 17 square feet of salt marsh would be destroyed by the bridge piles, and because the bridge itself would cast shade on shellfish. The owner appealed up the state's administrative chain, and in the interim revised its proposal to make it a steel bridge, which would not require pilings and would not cast as much shade.

That change seemed at first to have the desired effect, because the DEP told the owner that a steel bridge was entitled to approval under state environmental law. In light of that, the state appeal office -- which was considering the administrative appeal -- stated that the appeal should be granted. But the Town opposed the change, asserting that the switch from wood to steel was not authorized in accordance with the change rules. When the state appeal office issued its final decision, it was not good news for the owner: steel bridge denied, because the change didn't conform to the requirement that any plan changes are not substantially different than the original proposal.

The office of appeals concluded that if the owner wanted the state to review a bridge proposal, it would have to resubmit a new steel bridge proposal. The owner appealed to the state court of appeals, which only recently affirmed. Haney v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 173 N.E.3d 55 (Mass. App. Ct. 2021).

Undaunted, the owner set the wheels in motion again. It applied to the Town for another variance from the frontage and road requirement. "In an effort to address the perceived reason behind the Board's denial of the 2013 Variance Applications [emergency vehicle access], the Trust provided the Board with a '2014 plan depict[ing] a bridge and Gooseberry Island." Slip op. at 7.

Unanimously denied, because "the bridge needs to be approved prior to building on the lot." Slip op. at 7. At that time, the state's decision on a bridge was still in-process It would not be resolved by the court of appeals until a few years later). The owner suggested that a conditional variance would be ok: how about approving the variance, conditioned on the state's later approval of a bridge? Nope, variance denied.

Federal court takings lawsuit followed. As did the government's 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, which the district court granted. The takings claim was not ripe "because the Trust never applied to build a steel bridge." Slip op. at 9. The owner could have (and thus should have) "followed through with the filing of a New Notice of Intent with the [state] for construction of a steel bridge, even though[it] 'expressed support for this proposal.'" Slip op. at 10. The state might just grant that application, and "pursing the steel-bridge proposal would not be futile." Id.

The First Circuit affirmed because there hasn't been a final no. Those two variance denials? Not enough. The court rejected the owner's argument that it couldn't get approval from the state for a bridge without already having a variance from the Town already in hand. According to the opinion, the owner didn't need a variance from the Town in order to apply for permission to build a bridge from the state, so that issue was irrelevant. Slip op. at 13. 

The court also rejected the owner's assertion that the Town strayed outside its jurisdiction when it considered whether to condition a variance on a bridge. The Town can issue permits with conditions generally, and here, "the Board never determined whether that permit should or should not issue." Slip op. at 14. 

And what about the owner's main argument, that the Town actually denied the two requests for a variance? The Town didn't exactly condition a variance on the owner building a bridge, it's only that some of the Town Board members mentioned it. Or so argued the owner. The Town's actual decisions, according to the owner, were clear denials. Not quite, the court concluded. And here's where it seems to get a bit ack-basswards. The court concluded the Board member's statements "constitute the reasons for its decision." Slip op. at 15.

We thus see no support for the contention that we must disregard the statements made by the Board members as recorded in the 2018 Variance Decisions, at least when such statements are plausibly related to the concluding explanation given by the Board for denying the variances.

Slip op. at 16. The court concluded that the owner's argument was "underdeveloped" and thus waived.But is ripeness concerned with the why of the denial, or just that you get a denial? What's the deal with the reasons?

The court next noted that "Haney offers no argument as to why the denial of the 2018 Variance Applications should be interpreted as with prejudice." Slip op. at 15. The written denial "fails to specify whether the denials were with or without prejudice[.]" Wait, what? What's this prejudice thing? The Supreme Court only requires a decision, not an unequivocal no and an expression that the government won't consider you again, property owner. And remember that Pakdel only requires "de facto" finality, not more.

Finally, the First Circuit rejected the owner's argument that to chase more would be futile:

This futility exception -- which has been part of our caselaw for three decades -- was recently endorsed by the Supreme Court in Pakdel. 141 S. Ct. at 2230. In addressing the state-forum finality requirement, the Court held that a landowner only needs to show "that there is no question about how the regulations at issue apply to the particular land in question." Id. (cleaned up). The finality requirement is therefore met once it is clear to the federal courts that the initial decisionmaker has reached a "definitive position on the issue." Id. at 2230 (quoting Williamson Cnty. Reg'l Plan. Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 193 (1985)).

Through Pakdel, our caselaw's futility exception is now simply part and parcel of the finality requirement.

Slip op. at 17-18. Here, the Town "Board has never represented that it would deny any and all variance applications -- even if the [owner] presented applications accompanied by an approved steel-bridge plan." Slip op. at 19.

So go get a steel bridge approved, property owner. And with that, come back to the Town and submit a third application for a variance. Who knows, maybe the Town just might grant that one.  

Haney v. Town of Mashpee, No. 22-1446 (1st Cir. June 6, 2023)

New Takings Cert Petition (Ours): Can Govt Thwart Federal Court Regulatory Takings Claims By Seeking Abstention In Favor Of State Courts?

Here's the latest in a case we've been following since before it became one of ours.

In Gearing v. City of Half Moon Bay, No. 21-16688 (Dec. 8, 2022), the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's dismissal of a regulatory takings case, holding that federal courts should abstain from considering regulatory takings cases in favor of pending state court eminent domain actions, even when the condemnor instituted the state court action after the federal takings lawsuit was filed.

In the time since the Ninth Circuit issued the opinion, our law firm has joined up with our colleague Kristen Renfro who represented the owner in the court of appeals. That's why we won't be commenting further, and instead suggest you read the cert petition we filed today, chiefly authored by Counsel of Record Deborah LaFetra (lately of the Tyler v. Hennepin County takings case). 

Here is the Question Presented:

Thomas and Daniel Gearing are categorically prohibited from building on residentially zoned vacant land that the City of Half Moon Bay prefers as an open space public park. They exercised their choice of forum by filing a lawsuit in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a regulatory taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and seeking just compensation, costs, and attorneys’ fees. The City responded by filing an eminent domain lawsuit in state court that significantly limits the issues and the Gearings’ remedies. The City then convinced the federal court to abstain from deciding the Gearings’ first-filed federal lawsuit under Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941). As a result of the forthcoming state court decision to which federal courts are bound to give full faith and credit, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, the Gearings will be deprived of full just compensation as well as other recovery authorized by the Civil Rights Act.

The question presented is:

Whether federal courts may deprive takings claimants of their chosen forum by invoking the prudential Pullman abstention doctrine to require them to first litigate their claims in state court.

Stay tuned, as always.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Gearing v. City of Half Moon Bay, No. ___ (June 1, 2023)

New (Michael Berger) Cert Petition: Knick "Changed the world of takings litigation" And Applies Retroactively - And Statutes Of Limitations Are Affirmative Defenses

Here's a new cert petition, filed this week by Michael Berger that asks whether Knick's no-need-to-exhaust-or-chase-state-compensation rule applies retroactively.

The Second Circuit held that no, the owner's claims were too late, and although Knick overruled the Williamson County rule that kept him from a timely filing in federal court, that's just too bad:

We also agree with the district court that the remaining claims are largely time barred. Demarest filed this lawsuit in June 2021, yet much of the conduct targeted by his complaint dates from long before. Since a § 1983 claim adopts the limitations period for a state personal injury tort-which in Vermont is three years, see Morse v. Univ. of Vt., 973 F.2d 122, 125-27 (2d Cir. 1992)-claims accruing before June 2018, which comprise the majority of Demarest's complaint, would be time barred. Although Demarest argues that his claims accrued only when a recent Supreme Court decision, Knick v. Twp. of Scott, Pennsylvania, 139 S.Ct. 2162 (2019), removed an impediment to his pursuing them, he is incorrect: "[a] decision recognizing a cause of action after the period has run does not retroactively interrupt the running of the limitations period." Fiesel v. Bd. of Educ. of N.Y.C., 675 F.2d 522, 524 (2d Cir. 1982) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Arguing that Knick rewrote the script (and righted the ship that Williamson County had upended), the petition asks the Court to give retroactive effect to its rule.

To us, this makes a lot of sense because Knick wasn't so much a new rule as a return to normalcy. Williamson County was the aberration and the Court veering takings litigation and procedures off-track. Before Williamson County, a property owner could go to federal court with her federal takings claim, and she can now. It seems like this is just what retroactivity was meant for.

The petition also points out that the Second Circuit treated the statute of limitations as some kind of jurisdictional bar, and not a claims processing rule (hang on, that sounds familiar....).

Here are the Questions Presented:

The Court of Appeals refused to give retroactive effect to this Court’s landmark decision in Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S.Ct. 2162 (2019), which opened the federal courts to constitutional property litigation for the first time in 34 years. Compounding that error, the Court of Appeals refused to grant rehearing to consider the impact of the then pending decision in Wilkins v. United States, 143 S.Ct. 870 (2023), which ended up restricting the impact of statutes of limitation. In combination, the Court of Appeals’ refusal to apply this Court’s current law deprived Petitioner of property without just compensation and due process of law.

The questions presented are:

1. When Knick changed the world of takings litigation by allowing—for the first time since 1985—a property owner with a claim for unconstitutional taking of property to file suit in federal court, must that decision be applied retroactively, with the time to file suit tolled until the date Knick was decided, so as to give its benefit to property owners who had been precluded from suing in federal court before?

2. When Wilkins confirmed in the real property context that statutes of limitation are not jurisdictional but are merely claim processing tools, must lower courts now treat statutes of limitation as affirmative defenses to be proved at trial by the defendant?

Are we going to follow along? You bet we are (and you should also).

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Demarest v. Town of Underhill, No. ____ (U.S. May 8, 2023)

CA6: Taking Occurs, And Statute Of Limitations Begins To Run, When Foreclosure Redemption Period Expires And Not Before

In what the court termed a "matter of first impression," slip op. at 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held in Beaver Street Investments, LLC v. Summit County, No. 22-3600 (Apr. 21, 2023), that the statute of limitations in a § 1983 takings claim for a local government's alleged home equity theft (for more on that issue, see here) began to run when the period when a homeowner can redeem a foreclosure ended, and not when (as the government argued) the government made the decision to acquire the home (the final adjudication of foreclosure).

As the majority noted:

The dispositive issue in this appeal is what constituted the “act of taking.” See id. In other words, the Court must determine when, as a matter of law, the County took BSI’s property without paying for it. See id. The County argues that the taking occurred when it made a final decision regarding BSI’s property, which it asserts was the final adjudication of foreclosure. BSI argues, by contrast, that the County took its property on the date the County transferred the property to the land bank. This appears to be a matter of first impression.

Slip op. at 5.

We suggest you read the opinion because (1) it isn't that long (11 pages, including the dissenting opinion), and (2) as all takings statute of limitations opinions do, it also backhandedly deals with the flip-side issue of when a takings case is ripe. As the majority noted, the SOL only begins once a case is ripe, and both dates are based on when the taking occurs. The court rejected the government's argument than an earlier decision controlled. The majority concluded that the case involved ripeness, but "is still relevant, however, because it provides the general principle that for a taking to occur, 'there must be a 'final decision' to take the property, ... meaning that it is 'known to a reasonable degree of certainty' what will happen to the property ...." Slip op. at 6.

The end of the redemption period -- the window in which the property owner could effectively pull out of the dive and get the property back -- was the first point in time where the taking could have occurred. If the owner paid up, "the County would have been prohibited from taking the property." Slip op. at 7. This was also the first time that it became clear that the County would seize it. Yes, it decided to take the property earlier when it entered a final decision of foreclosure, but no actual acquisition was possible until the owner let the redemption period lapse. See id. ("until that time, whether the County would transfer title was unclear").

One judge dissented, and would have agreed with the County that deciding to take the property by foreclosing was the operative event. The complaint was complaining about the transfer, not the lapse of the redemption period, the dissent argued. See Dissent at 10. That's when the property owner knew it was injured:

Here, the injury forming the basis of BSI’s action was the County’s decision to direct the transfer of BSI’s property to the County’s land bank. Thus, the key event alerting BSI to protect its rights was the BOR’s final adjudication of foreclosure on June 3, 2019, which ordered that direct transfer. At that time, BSI knew or had reason to know that the County would transfer its property in lieu of sale.

Id.

To the dissent, that decision was also the "final decision" for ripeness purposes. Which is the same date the statute of limitations clock began ticking. When the taking took place is a separate inquiry (at least according to the dissenting judge).

What do you think about this one? What accounts for the different world views of the majority and dissent? Is the majority viewing this as more akin to a physical taking, where compensation is owed when the property is transferred from the owner to the County? And is the dissent seeing this as a regulatory taking where it is the "final decision" to take without compensation that renders the claim for compensation ripe?

We know which way we see it - what about you?

Beaver Street Investments, LLC v. Summit County, No. 22-3600 (6th Cir. Apr. 21, 2023)

Instead Of Being The First Case To Take Advantage Of Knick, This One Was The Last Victim Of Williamson County

There's a lot going on in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's opinion in Tejas Motel, L.L.C. v. City of Mesquite, No. 22-10321 (Mar. 22, 2023), but that's mostly because it's a procedural decision resolving a question of whether a Texas court's federal takings judgment was res judicata, and therefore prohibited a federal takings complaint filed later in federal court .

As you might surmise from the above summary, the Fifth Circuit indeed concluded that the second (federal) takings lawsuit was precluded by the judgment in the first (Texas), because the Texas court issued a final judgment on the merits of Tejas Motel's federal takings claim.

Short story: the city doesn't really care for operations like the Tejas Motel. Back in 1997, the city amended its zoning code to effectively outlaw these types of motels, rendering Tejas a nonconforming use. Later, after "local residents allegedly complained about the poor conditions and criminal activity" at such places, the city cracked down ever harder, and told Tejas to shape up or ship out: the motel could either fix the problems that were affecting its neighbors, or it would be shut down, nonconforming use or not. Slip op. at 3.

"Facing pressure from the City and the Board, Tejas agreed to cease operations or bring the motel into conformity with the zoning ordinance by May 1, 2019." Id. But "[t]hree months later," Tejas claimed it executed the agreement under duress and sued the city in state court. By our calculations, the state court lawsuit -- which made claims under both Texas and federal law (including takings) -- was filed in either August or September 2019.

The Fifth Circuit noted that Tejas Motel "was forced into state court by Williamson County," and that case's now-overruled-by-Knick state litigation ripeness requirement. Slip op. at 18. But wait, you note. Wasn't Knick v. Township of Scott decided on June 21, 2019, one to two months before Tejas filed in state court in August or September 2019? How was it "forced" to bring its federal takings claims in state court?

We're not sure at all. Maybe we're not understanding the timeline properly. Or maybe one of the dates on which we're relying is a typo. But in our view, this doesn't quite line up as Tejas being required by Williamson County to file its federal takings claim in state court, when, by our read, when it filed its state court federal takings claim the Supreme Court had already decided Knick.

Yes, it was a freshly-minted decision, but these days word travels fast (those of you of a certain vintage will remember back in the day when it took one week or more for those of us outside of the Beltway to get our hands on the actual text of Supreme Court opinions, when our copy of U.S. Law Week would arrive in the mail). So we can't quite figure out why, if the Fifth Circuit's opinion's timeline is accurate, that the court notes the property owners were forced to file in state court.

Well, in any event that's what Tejas did. Maybe it was a strategic choice to file in state court, and not, as the Fifth Circuit noted, a matter of being forced to do so by Williamson County. And filing in state court had consequences, as the Fifth Circuit noted. As we wrote at the top of this post, the opinion is somewhat challenging to follow, because you've got to keep track of the two parallel actions, and the status of each in its respective court.

In the end, the Fifth Circuit held that Tejas Motel had asserted federal takings claims in state court, that the state court had determined the merits of that claim even though the state court dismissed the complaint for lack of a "constitutionally protected interest in continuing to use the property in violation of the City's zoning ordinances when it acquired the property knowing it was in violation of those ordinances," slip op. at 6, and had entered a judgment that is now final:

One can sympathize with Tejas’s procedural plight. It was forced into state court by Williamson County, and now cannot avoid the consequences of the adverse judgment it received. But nothing in Knick nullifies long-settled principles of res judicata. State courts are competent to adjudicate federal claims, and their judgments are entitled to full faith and credit in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738. Because the Texas Court of Appeals issued a final judgment on the merits of Tejas’s constitutional claim, the motel does not get a second bite at the apple.

The judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED.

Slip op. at 18. 

Tejas Motel, L.L.C. v. City of Mesquite, No. 22-10321 (5th Cir. Mar. 22, 2023)

CA8: Where A State's Just Comp Remedy Is Inadequate, You Can Sue For Injunctive Relief For A Taking

Check out the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's opinion in Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. Williams, No. 21-1731 (Apr. 3, 2023), where the court reinstated a complaint dismissed by the district court for lack of standing.

The Eighth Circuit held that even though the "usual" remedy for a regulatory taking is just compensation, where a state's just compensation remedy would be inadequate, the property owner may seek equitable relief such as a declaratory judgment or an injunction. [Disclosure: our law firm filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, arguing that equitable is available in takings claims.] 

The complaint challenged Minnesota’s Insulin Affordability Act, which requires insulin manufacturers to provide insulin at no charge to eligible Minnesotans in 90-day increments for up to one year. The manufacturers argued that the Act works a taking, and sought to enjoin its enforcement. Note that the complaint was brought in federal court, against state officials in their official capacities. So the real battle here was over the forum: if compensation is the only available relief, then the Eleventh Amendment means the suit cannot be brought in federal court (at least as the current state of 11th Amendment law stands). But if declaratory or prospective injunctive relief is okay, then the Ex parte Young exception applies and green light to federal court action.

The District of Minnesota held that equitable relief was unavailable, based on its misreading of Knick v. Township of Scott, which suggested that "equitable relief is generally unavailable" for a takings claim "[a]s long as an adequate provision for obtaining just compensation exists." The District Court held that the plaintiffs could have obtained just compensation in an inverse condemnation action in the Minnesota courts (yes, Minnesota uses the mandamus remedy which is not, technically speaking, "inverse condemnation," but close enough - the court held that property owners can get money in Minnesota courts for takings).

The Eighth Circuit, however, recognized the issue was the adequacy of this remedy -- not merely its existence -- because "Knick does not hold that every state’s compensation remedy is adequate in a particular situation; implicit in Knick is the requirement that just compensation must be available to petitioners seeking a remedy." Slip op. at 11. To determine adequacy, the remedy must be "practical and efficient." Slip op. at 12. 

And that's where the district court's analysis fell short. Because the Act requires indefinite periodic donations of private property, the repetitive nature of the taking would require the plaintiffs to keep on suing for just compensation claims, ad infinitum. The Eighth Circuit held that state court compensation would not be an adequate remedy, given the endless and repetitive nature of the taking:

An inverse condemnation action to reimburse a manufacturer for each discrete alleged taking is incapable of compensating the manufacturers for the repetitive, future takings that will occur under the Act’s requirements. By contrast, equitable relief would protect manufacturers from those future harms.

Slip op. 18.

The court also rejected Minnesota's arguments that the Eleventh Amendment barred jurisdiction, and that Ex parte Young does not apply to takings claims because of the state’s "special sovereignty interest" in eminent domain. The court held that where there is no adequate remedy at law, and where a takings claimant seeks a prospective injunction that will not result in payment from the state’s treasury, the Ex parte Young exception applies and the Eleventh Amendment is no bar to a federal court action.

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. Williams, No. 21-1731 (8th Cir. Apr. 3, 2023)

CA4: Exactions Takings Claim Accrues When Owner Knows Of The Demand, Not When It Paid

As most of you probably already know, there's a demon lurking out there in takings claims. Not of the Levon Helm-narrated The Right Stuff variety, but maybe just as deadly in litigation.

That's right, the too-early-or-too-late thing (or in some cases, the too-early-and-too-late argument). Getting caught between arguments that a takings claim isn't ripe, and arguments that it is too late (statutes of limitation).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was dealing with the latter (a statute of limitations) in Epcon Homestead, LLC v. Town of Chapel Hill, No. 21-1713 (Mar. 20, 2023), but there are lessons in the case for the other side of the issue, ripeness.

The facts are pretty straightforward. If you are going to build at least five single-family units, the town's zoning ordinance contains a requirement of "inclusionary zoning" (aka affordable housing; aka below-market units. Or if you don't want to build such housing, you can pony up some cash if the town agrees.

The owner of the property wanted to build 63 units so was subject to this requirement. It didn't want to build affordable units, so opted to pay cash (approximately $800k). The town agreed, and conditioned its issuance of a special use permit which would allow the project to proceed on the developer paying this in-lieu fee: no certificates of occupancy would issue until the fee was paid.

Then Epcon bought the property. It built the 63 homes, and sold them. It made the first installment payment for the in-lieu fee, and two years later paid the final payment. Voila, certificates of occupancy. 

Next stop, state court where Epcon asserted the in-lieu fee was illegal under a variety of theories, including a section 1983 claim that the fee was an unconstitutional taking and violated Epcon's due process rights. The town removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss the federal claims because the lawsuit was filed more than three years after the in-lieu condition was imposed (it had been four years).

As we all know, section 1983 does not have a built-in SOL, so the courts have held that the SOL of the closest state-law analogy applies. In North Carolina, that's three years. The District Court agreed with the town and dismissed. You snoozed, so you lose Epcon.

The Fourth Circuit agreed. We suggest you go read pages 9-11 of the opinion for the reasons why. The bottom line is that "there is no 'distinctive rule' in the Takings Clause context to apply for determining when the limitations period for a § 1983 claim begins to run[,]" and the usual ("standard") rule applies: a 1983 claim is ready when the plaintiffs knows or has reason to know that it is injured. Slip op. at 9. But when did the injury here occur?

Epcon argued it wasn't really injured until it finished paying. Not so, held the Fourth Circuit, it was injured when it learned of the special use permit condition after it purchased the property.

Here, Epcon alleges that it suffered an injury under § 1983 stemming from the application of an unlawful special use permit condition. As the district court concluded, Epcon first had reason to know of this injury no later than 2015, when it began purchasing the land subject to the special use permit. Thus, its claim that the permit condition violated its rights to just compensation and due process accrued at that point and extinguished three years later. By the time Epcon filed suit in October 2019, the sun had set on its federal claims.

Slip op. at 9 (footnote omitted).

The court rejected Epcon's argument that the injury occurred when it was compelled to actually pay the fees, and that happened when it went to the town for the certificates of occupancy. And this isn't a regulatory takings claim, Epson asserted. If it were, the SOL clock might have started earlier. No, this is an unconstitutional conditions claim, and that's different. Slip op. at 10. We didn't lose our property right until we paid, it argued.

We disagree, the court held. "The distinction Epcon attempts to draw between exactions and regulatory takings proves little more than that the government need not physically appropriate property to enact a taking." Slip op. at 10. [Barista's note: "enact" a taking?]

And here's your money quote: "Once the government conditions the grant of a land-use permit on the surrender of a landowner’s right to just compensation, a Takings Clause claim becomes cognizable." Slip op. at 10. In other words, once that happens, the lawsuit window is open and the SOL clock is ticking. In other words, the claim is ripe.

Remember that one the next time the government argues an exaction case isn't ripe because the action being challenged as unconstitutional (the government's demand, and the subsequent owner payment) isn't complete.

Epcon Homestead, LLC v. Town of Chapel Hill, No. 21-1713 (4th Cir. Mar. 20, 2023)

Exactions, Takings, And Ripeness...Oh My! When Planning Officials Say "No," That's Enough (Even If They Might Have Said "Yes" Some Other Way)

There's a lot to digest in the 36-page Order of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in case that mostly concerns the validity of an exaction a small property owner was required to pony up in order to tear down and replace an old home on its land.

Megladon bought the residentially-zoned property in 2016 to tear down the existing building and build a new one. Simple enough, right? It demolished the old house, and applied to the Village to build a new one. But the Village also needed a road, and began making noise about a "possible road dedication." And sure enough, eventually the Village notified Megladon that "a certificate of occupancy will not be issued until dedication of the right-of-way is complete." Slip op. at 4. There's a dispute over exactly whose law requires such a dedication -- Village or County? -- but that's not terribly important for our purposes. 

Megladon balked, as dedicating a road would require it to reformulate its plans. There's apparently a procedure by which a property owner can request and exemption or waiver, but "Megladon refused because of the 'legal inconsistency of doing so[.]'" Slip op. at 4. Instead, it sued in a Florida state court. The Village then removed the action to federal court. After removal, Megladon amended its complaint to add an unconstitutional conditions claim.

The inevitable motion to dismiss under 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) followed.

Many pages of the court's order (mostly) denying the motion to dismiss are devoted to whether the plaintiff sued the right defendant. Important to the case and the parties, but not really of interest to us. If you might be, check out pages 9-23. 

Page 24 is where the interesting stuff heats up. The court concluded the claims are ripe over the Village's objection that -- you guessed it -- it has not yet reached a "final decision." Slip op. at 24. The court concluded "[t]his argument strains credulity[,]" because the Planning Director send Megladon an email that indeed "a certificate of occupancy will not be issued until dedication of the right-of-way is complete." To the court, this looked like a final decision:

Especially when we view this communication (from the Village’s Planning Director no less) in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, we don’t think we’re going out on a limb by saying that it sounds a lot like a final decision. Director Olmsted made clear that the Village would issue the permit provided the Plaintiff acceded to the dedication. See ibid. “Provided” in this context means “with the provision or condition (that); it being provided, stipulated, or arranged (that).” Provided, Oxford English Dictionary Online, https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/153449 (last visited Mar. 1, 2023); accord Provided, Merriam-Webster's (defining “provided” as “on condition that, with the understanding, if only”). And, in case there was any doubt, Olmsted clarified that Megladon would “need” to consent (in writing) to the dedication “prior to” the issuance of any permit, and he was pellucid that the permit “will not be issued until dedication of the right-of-way is complete.” SAC ¶ 64 (emphases added). The word “will”—like the word “shall”—indicates the imposition of a mandatory condition. See Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 471 (1983) (“[T]he Commonwealth has gone beyond simple procedural guidelines. It has used language of an unmistakably mandatory character, requiring that certain procedures ‘shall,’ ‘will,’ or ‘must’ be employed[.]”); Will, Oxford English Dictionary Online (“An utterance of the auxiliary verb ‘will’; (also) a command, promise, or determination expressed by such an utterance.”); Will, Merriam-Webster's (defining “will” as “used to express a command, exhortation, or injunction”); Scalia & Garner 112 (“Mandatory words impose a duty; permission words grant discretion.”).

And Olmsted’s unequivocal use of the phrase “will need” in relation to the dedication requirement puts to bed the Defendants’ bordering-on-frivolity contention that “the response to [the architect’s] email was not a refusal to continue processing the application absent a showing of dedication.”

Slip op. at 25 (footnote omitted).

This all in the context of an exaction or unconstitutional condition claim, where the bad act (according to the court) isn't that the government actually denied the permit asked for, but only that the government imposed the condition. Slip op. at 26.

The order noted that yes, the property owner could have gone further in the administrative process under the Village's procedures. But that's what we call "exhaustion." Id. ("But the Supreme Court has made clear that the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine isn’t subject to an exhaustion requirement." (citing See Pakdel v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 141 S. Ct. 2226, 2231 (2021)). And you don't need to exhaust in order to ripen a federal takings claim.

And here's the kicker: the ripeness requirement isn't some hard-and-fast "one application" rule, but rather "[t]o assert a plausible unconstitutional-conditions claim, therefore, a plaintiff need only allege that there’s 'no question . . . about how the ‘regulations at issue [apply] to the particular land in question.''" Slip op. at 27 (citing Suitum v. Tahoe Reg’l Plan. Agency, 520 U.S. 725, 739 (1997); Williamson Cnty. Reg’l Plan. Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 191 (1985)). And the availability of a variance isn't important, because "[i]n Williamson County, after all, the Court was concerned only with whether the plaintiff could seek a variance from the initial decisionmaker." Slip op. at 28.

Thus, the takings claim was not filed too early.

But, you know that -- as the court noted -- "the Plaintiff isn't out of the woods just yet[,]' because the Village also asserted the claim was filed too late. Slip op. at 31. Yeah, this happens a lot in takings-land, where you can be accused with a straight face of being both too early and too late. Check out pages 32-34 for why (it turns on the construction of the sovereign immunity waiver statute, if you are interested). 

Nothing resolved except the plaintiff is allowed to proceed. But as you all know, in takings law sometimes just surviving to continue the fight is a victory.

Order, Megladon, Inc. v. Village of Pinecrest, No. 1:21-cv-22819-ALTMAN (S.D. Fla. Mar. 2, 2023)

Denying Uses (But Allowing Discretionary Ad Hoc Exceptions) Isn't A Recipe For Rational Land Use

If a zoning statute or ordinance sets out the uses permitted in a zone, and the uses not permitted in the zone, and a property owner wants to make a use not permitted in the zone, all she needs to do is apply for a variance, or a Conditional Use Permit, or a nonconforming use permit, or a Special Use Permit, right? After all, isn't the point of these exceptions to bright-line use prohibitions to build in a large degree of flexibility and afford front-line regulators in the right circumstances the discretion to grant a use the legislature prohibited? One size does not fit all, does it? 

That was the issue that closely divided the Hawaii Supreme Court in Hoomoana Foundation v. Land Use Comm'n, No. SCWC-17-181 (Mar. 10, 2023). In a 3-2 opinion, the court concluded that when a use is expressly barred by a zoning statute (and yes, here it is a zoning statute because Hawaii has state-controlled zoning) you cannot ask for a Special Permit to make that use. The only way you can make a use expressly prohibited by the statute is to change the parcel's zoning.

The Case and the Issue

Here's the story. The Foundation wanted to set up an "overnight campground for homeless and commercial campers" (slip op. at 3) on land it leased, which was zoned by the State as Agriculture (B-rated soil, if you are interested):

16. Under Ho'omoana's proposal, the Project would consist of 2 acres, while the remaining adjacent 5.9 acres would be reserved as an agricultural field to be used by the campground occupants for therapy and work. It is envisioned that the [homeless] campers may work in the agricultural field to supplement their rental fees. Homeless campers are expected to pay $10 a night, while the commercial campers would be charged more. The camping fees are anticipated to underwrite the expenses of the campground. Although some of the campers may wish to participate in farming activities on the Property, there is no guarantee that the agricultural field would result in future agricultural productivity nor is there a current requirement placed upon the campers to engage in agricultural pursuits.

17. The 2-acre area of the Project would have up to 26 pods for tents accommodating up to 80 people. Tents are to be provided by the campers. It is intended that both the homeless campers and the commercial campers would be camping alongside each other. In addition to the pods, showers, toilet facilities, fire pits or camp stove areas, a paved parking area, and a charging station for campers are proposed. Homeless campers would be allowed to stay for two to three months or more as approved by the campground manager. It is unclear how long commercial campers would be allowed to use the grounds, but any stay would need to be approved by the manager.

Slip op. at 4.

Problem is, the Agricultural district doesn't seem to allow for overnight camping. The statute says that recreational uses like day camping is permitted, but expressly excludes "overnight camps" as allowed uses:

Within the agricultural district ... all lands ... shall be restricted to the following permitted uses: ... Public and private open area types of recreational uses, including day camps ... but not including ... overnight camps[.]

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 205-4.5(a)(6).

But an adjacent statute also allows a request for a Special Use Permit, for "unusual and reasonable uses within agricultural and rural districts other than those for which the district is classified." Haw. Rev. Stat. § 205-6. So what's the deal, can a county Planning Commission or the state Land Use Commission consider a special use permit to allow a use expressly prohibited by the zoning statute?

What Happened

The Foundation thought so, and asked the Maui County Planning Commission for a Special Permit to allow the overnight homeless and commercial campground project as a "unusual and reasonable use." The Foundation also had behind it a Hawaii Supreme Court case, Mahaulepu v. Land Use Comm'n, 71 Haw. 332, 790 P.2d 906 (1990), which held that a use not permitted under section 205-4.5(a)(6) might well be authorized via a special use permit.

But neighbors who object to the project asked the State Land Use Commission for a declaratory ruling that the proposed use of Agricultural land requires a zoning change (known in the parlance of Hawaii's statewide zoning scheme as a "boundary amendment"), and cannot be accomplished ad hoc by a discretionary special use permit.

The LUC agreed with the neighbors, concluding that the overnight camping project could not be approved by way of a special use permit, but that there must be a change in the zoning in order to allow it. By expressly prohibiting "overnight camping," the legislature had, in effect, already made the determination that overnight camping was not an unusual and reasonable use. Thus, no special use permit.

The Foundation appealed to a state trial court under the Administrative Procedures Act. It argued that the special use permit statute doesn't expressly preclude asking for an exception for uses prohibited by the zoning, and moreover, that Mahahulepu case held that doing so is just fine. The trial court bought the Foundation's argument and reversed the Land Use Commission.

Next stop, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, which seemed to go both ways on the issues:

The ICA concluded it was bound by Mahaʻulepu, making the LUC’s decision contradicting Mahaʻulepu palpably erroneous. However, the ICA observed that the specific exclusion of overnight camps should control over the general availability of special permits in keeping with canons of statutory construction and furthering the statutory scheme.

Slip op. at 11.

Majority: The Statute Bars Overnight Camping, And That's That

Final stop, discretionary review by the Hawaii Supreme Court. There, a three-Justice majority (Nakayama, Wilson, Eddins) overruled the Mahahulepu case, and concluded that no, you cannot ask for a special use permit if the use you are seeking is expressly prohibited in the zoning statute:

HRS §§ 205-4.5(a)(6) and 205-6 are clear: the “public and private open area types of recreational uses” of “dragstrips, airports, drive-in theaters, golf courses, golf driving ranges, country clubs, and overnight camps” are not permitted on class A and B agricultural land, and cannot be permitted by special use permit.

Slip op. at 19-20 (footnote omitted).

Relying on statutory text, legislative history, and the canon of statutory construction that the specific controls over the general, the majority concluded that the point of chapter 205 is the protection and preservation of agricultural lands, and allowing a use to be made of agricultural land that is expressly prohibited by the zoning statute would not "promote the effectiveness and objectives of this chapter" as the special use permit statute requires. Slip op. at 18.

Having concluded that a special use permit isn't the way one might ask to establish an overnight campground on agricultural land, the majority held that the only way for the Foundation to get its overnight camping project approved would be to seek a "boundary amendment" (aka zoning change) to change the zoning from Agricultural "to one where recreational overnight camps are permitted." Slip op. at 21.

As for Mahahulepu? Overruled. That decision was the product of "flawed" reasoning (that case held that golf courses, another use expressly prohibited by the statute on Agricultural land, could be approved by way of a special use permit), and "failed to engage with the plain language of [the statute] prohibiting certain uses[.]" Slip op. at 22.

Dissent: The Statute Prohibits "Recreational" Uses, Which This Isn't

Two Justices (Chief Justice Recktenwald and Justice McKenna) saw it differently. Stare decisis cautions against lightly overruling cases that are only 30 years old, "[w]hether or not we agree with its reasoning[.]" Dissent at 2. After all, the legislature has had ample time to supersede Mahahulepu, but it hasn't done so.

More interestingly, the dissenters did not view the proposal for an overnight homeless campground as a "recreational use" included in the statute's express prohibition. Dissent at 9-10 ("An overnight campground for unsheltered persons is not a 'recreational' use."). Thus, at least that part of the project might be subject to approval on Agricultural land, because the statute only bars "recreational uses" (and then lists out examples, including overnight camping. The dissenters also were troubled by the Land Use Commission barring the Foundation from intervening in the declaratory ruling process initiated by the neighbors, "some of whom asserted 'not in my backyard' concerns. Dissent at 14-15 (footnote omitted).

Some Thoughts On Bright Lines and Ad Hoccery

Overall, this one isn't terribly surprising, given the Hawaii Supreme Court's wanting to keep a tight rein on land use issues, and its record of reading exceptions to the court's view of the meaning of statutes and ordinances very narrowly. The court, for example, falls squarely in the "narrow" approach to variances.

And we have to agree more with the majority on this one, but for slightly different reasons. We don't really focus on the statutory interpretation as the majority reasoned (after all, it seems you might read the statute both as the majority and as the dissenters did). Instead, we see this one as a push in the correct direction on a larger-scope issue. That being what we see as a trend in land use regulation to paint with a very broad brush in a statute or ordinance, and then rely on administrative or agency officials to exercise discretion to craft ad hoc exceptions. 

To us, this is a bad trend. The problem with "ban use X by law, but allow a discretionary process that might allow use X" is that it shifts the locus of land use regulation from elected officials and legislative judgments to discretionary administrative determinations made by unelected officials (aka bureaucrats). It also seems to favor old-hand insiders who know how to play the system, legally or otherwise. It might not matter whether you can read the law, but it does matter who you know at the Planning Commission or the Land Use Commission.

Bear with us while we play this out. Let's say the legislature has decided to prohibit certain uses in a certain zone and writes the statute or the ordinance that way. Landowners may not like the restrictions because, well, they are restrictions on their use of their land, but at least having a clear line about what is allowed and what isn't fixes a position to which property owners can react and plan. But let's also say that the legislature also includes in the law that in specific cases, an administrative official has the discretion to effectively overrule the legislature's judgment and permit a use that is expressly prohibited. This leaves what should be legislative judgments up to the discretion of nonlegislative officials. 

What's wrong with that, you ask? After all, as noted at the start of this post, one size does not fit all and shouldn't the law itself account for situations in the grey areas that cannot be accounted for when a legislature regulates property? Don't we want to provide landowners with the chance of making a certain use of their property even though a zoning ordinance or statute prohibits it? Flexibility!

It's All Discretionary, Son

In our view, the "everything is discretionary" approach is a recipe for administrative gamesmanship, and runs counter to the idea that to be a valid exercise of police powers, land use regulation should be comprehensive and part of a bigger plan. Maybe more importantly, this type of scheme not only makes arbitrary decisions more likely, it allows government to create "permit purgatories" where property owners are sent to wither on the vine, especially where the legislatively-adopted regulation bars all uses.

In those cases, instead of having to face the takings music for a regulation that prohibits all economic uses, the government gets off the hook if it can point a court to the mere possibility that it might waive, overlook, or vary the restriction. And once a court hears from the government that there is some theoretical possibility that the use prohibited by the statute or ordinance might be allowed if only the property owner asked the right person in the right way (and that person makes a response that can be deemed "final") the judge's interest switch turns to "off" and the court can confidently kick the case for being unripe. We are referring of course to the "final decision" requirement of Williamson County. Because when there is any discretion in the process, courts are loathe to evaluate takings claims on the merits, on the theory that the government might -- just might! -- exercise its discretion and allow what its own statutes or ordinances plainly and expressly prohibit.

Discretion is Often Designed for Permit Purgatory And Takings Avoidance

Perhaps the most glaring example of how this dynamic enables administrative and judicial gamesmanship is California Public Resources Code § 30010, which has been interpreted as providing both the California Coastal Commission and local governments the complete and total discretion to overrule or ignore any restrictive regulation in the coastal zone, if the CCC or a local government can be convinced by the property owner that to apply the statute or ordinance as written would result in a taking. And believe us, the California Coastal Act and local coastal ordinances are full of restrictions that prohibit any and all economically-beneficial uses. But because section 30010 seems to leave open the possibility that these restrictions may be waived ad hoc (if only the property owner asked the right person the right way), courts never get to the merits. "Just ask for an exemption," they counsel landowners, ignoring protestations that these discretionary approvals are more imaginary than a real possibility, and that assembling a request to exercise discretion can be eye-wateringly expensive.

You don't have to be in the land use game all that long to see the evil genius in this, at least the way the courts read this statute: not only does this put the owner into permit purgatory where government is incentivized to avoid taking a concrete position about what its restrictions allow and what they prohibit, this procedure forces a property owner to present her constitutional takings claims to the very government that she claims is violating her rights, upon pain of a 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) dismissal if she files a takings lawsuit before the government responds. Yet the Supreme Court says it does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies in takings cases.

What About Euclid?

But these discretionary purgatories take the foundation of the constitutionality of zoning as expressed in Euclid -- the assumption that land use regulations are constitutional because they are the product of big picture thinking and a comprehensive plan -- and inverts it so that every decision is discretionary and case-by-case. The reality is that these "exceptions" are granted rarely, and the process isn't so much designed to get to a "yes" or "no" on what uses might be allowed on a particular parcel, but are often there more as a "takings avoidance" tool like section 30010, where property owners are forced into an open-ended maze and the government does everything it can to strenuously avoid making any decision. That way, the owner remains stuck in the discretionary maze, never to receive an answer, until the owner throws in the towel, after bleeding out financially or spiritually.

This is rational land use planning?

It isn't, but most federal courts have accepted it as the way the land regulation game is played. So kudos Hawaii Supreme Court, for holding the legislature to what it said in the statute, and not allowing unelected members of a county planning commission or the state Land Use Commission decide that in this case, the statute is meaningless.

Hoomoana Foundation v. Land Use Comm'n, No. SCWC-17-0000181 (Haw. Mar. 10, 2023)

One Guess What The Second Circuit Did With A Takings Challenge To Rent Control

Let's say you know nothing else about an appeal except it is being decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the case is a constitutional challenge to rent control. What's your best guess about the outcome (the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim)?

When the Second Circuit issued its summary order in just such a case last week -- a challenge to the "Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019" -- we decided to undertake a little unscientific poll to see whether others out in the Twitterverse predicted as we did.

Looks like so. Yes, the sampling size was small, and the respondents were only those who voluntarily offered their thoughts. But 95% accurately predicted that the property owners would lose, as the Second Circuit indeed held in an appellate court's version of "laughing heartily" at an appellant's arguments: an unpublished summary order.

We could spend the rest of this post going through all of the reasons why the Second Circuit didn't find a scintilla of reversal in the property owners' arguments. But the Order is so short, you might as well read it yourself.

Short story: facial claim? Nope, no physical taking because you fool landlords let tenants in your properties. No facial reg take either, because "different landlords have greatly varying expectations." Order at 4. Rather than serve as an apt illustration of why the "expectations" part of the Penn Central test focuses on an irrelevant inquiry, the Second Circuit effectively concludes that reg takings claims can never be raised as facial claims. 

Same outcome for the as-applied claims: no plausible allegation of a physical taking because there's still the possibility of getting tenants out, and owners are not prohibited from exit the rent-controlled market by getting out of the rental market; the law merely "restricts a landlord's ability to profit by converting a rent stabilized unit to a market-rate unit[.]" Order at 6. And, for good measure, these claims are not ripe because the owners didn't plead that they tried to get anyone out. As for the as-applied regulatory takings claim, the claim is not ripe because the complaint does not allege that the owners tried to take advantage of any of the non-futile procedures to obtain a hardship exemption. And even if ripe, the owners lose "on the merits." (Remember this is an appeal from at 12(b)(6) dismissal, so what "the merits" has to do with anything is beyond us.)

So what might the 95% response indicate? People have very good predictive powers? Our colleagues are as cynical and jaded as we are? Constitutional challenges to rent control are so lacking in merit and plead-worthiness that courts rightly laugh them out of court? The Second Circuit is predictable but in other circuits you might get a more balanced view?

Or maybe -- just maybe -- something else is at play here, and, like a lot of other courts have done before it, the Second Circuit isn't about to upset the apple cart and do anything to undermine what started off, like a lot of these things do, as an "emergency" measure now fossilized into an untouchable entitlement (but an entitlement that is not paid for by the taxpayers, but by private property owners)? In these cases, the lower courts aren't likely to do doodly-squat, and rent control cases will be pushed up to the Supreme Court until that Court does something more than repeatedly decline to review the issue.  

Summary Order, 335-7 LLC v. City of New York, No. 21-823 (2d Cir. Mar. 1, 2023)

New Article: "Toward Principled Background Principles in Takings Law" (Strahilevitz & Hansen)

Check this out, a new article co-authored by a federal judge's law clerk and lawprof Lior Strahilevitz (Chicago). With the title, "Toward Principled Background Principles in Takings Law" are we going to read it? You bet. (Unlike a lot of new scholarship that we post here, we read this one immediately.)

Here's the Abstract:

Blunders made by lawyers, judges, and scholars have caused the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid to be deeply misunderstood. In Cedar Point, the Court re-wrote takings law by treating temporary and part-time entries onto private property as per se takings. Prior to Cedar Point these sorts of government-authorized physical entries would have been evaluated under a balancing framework that almost invariably enabled the government to prevail. As it happens, there were two well-established rules of black letter law that California’s lawyers and amici mistakenly failed to invoke in defending the Cedar Point union organizer access regulation. First, a physical takings claim accrues when a regulation authorizing third parties to enter private property is promulgated, not when the third party actually enters the land. Second, only the party that owned the land at the time the physical taking cause of action accrued can prevail. Under these doctrines, Cedar Point Nursery’s lawsuit was filed decades too late. By the wrong plaintiff. California’s oversights were probably outcome determinative.

Moving beyond Monday-morning quarterbacking, we argue that the statute of limitations arguments available to governments in future cases help provide the essential limiting principles that went unmentioned in Cedar Point. In the aftermath of Cedar Point prominent scholars denounced the opinion as a vehicle for gutting antidiscrimination law, labor law, environmental law, rent control, and other parts of the regulatory state. Our analysis reveals that these concerns are likely exaggerated because defenders of those long-standing limits on the right to exclude can invoke the statute of limitations arguments that California’s lawyers failed to raise. On the other hand, new restrictions on owners’ rights to exclude are vulnerable to legal challenge. Properly understood, contemporary takings law grandfathers in many longstanding limits on the right to exclude while constraining governments that wish to tackle collective action problems by restricting property rights in new ways. Moreover, statutes of limitations and related doctrines can provide courts with something that has been elusive since the Supreme Court’s 1992 takings decision in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council: a principled and coherent account of what restrictions on owners’ rights are impervious to takings claims because they qualify as background principles of state property law.

Read it at SSRN.

[Before we go on, Disclosure 1: my law firm represented the property owner in Cedar Point Nursery, so yes, I have a dog in the hunt.]

What do you think of the article's premise and conclusion that a regulation alleged to allow a physical invasion must be brought when the regulation is adopted, and not when property is actually invaded?

Government lawyers need not and should not repeat the mistake that California’s lawyers made, a goof that evidently went unnoticed by all three dissenting justices, all thirteen amici, and every scholar who has written about Cedar Point. By correcting Cedar Point’s litigation strategy blunder, governments may avoid having to compensate landlords who want to refuse to rent to members of a protected class, landlords whose ability to evict is constrained by rent control laws, employers who wish to fire workers involved in unionization efforts, and business owners who want to bill governments for the inconvenience of having to endure entry by health and safety inspectors. Most of these claims brought by property owners should fail if defended by competent government counsel who can learn from California’s error.

Id. at 5 (footnote omitted).

In other words, the allegedly unconstitutional act is the enactment of the regulation, and not also the failure to provide compensation when an invitee subsequently exercises the rights granted by the regulation to enter the plaintiff's property against the owner's wishes.

And what of the article's other premise, that regulations allowing physical invasions and occupations of property over time become "background principles of the State's law of property and nuisance" and disappear upon conveyance of the property?

Understandably, many observers were unnerved by Chief Justice Roberts’ decision to brush aside the notion that the California regulation – just seven years younger than the Fair Housing Act – was a background principle of state property law, unnerved many observers. If the 1975 California statute and regulation do not count by 2021 as background principles that inhere in title why shouldn’t the 1968 Fair Housing Act suffer the same fate? The response to Cedar Point from the least alarmed property scholars fell back on the idea that the Court would nonetheless treat the Fair Housing Act as a background principle. But no one has a good theory – other than a realist reading of the justices’ relative hostility to the goals of labor law – for why something magical happened between 1968 and 1975. After Cedar Point it is quite challenging to conclude that there are any principles at all underlying the Supreme Court’s conception of background principles. Our goals in this article include articulating coherent principles that are grounded in existing law and consistent with what the Court decided in Cedar Point.

Id. at 17 (footnotes omitted). 

Some preliminary impressions:

Are all physical invasion challenges facial claims? The article's premise seems to eviscerate the longstanding distinction in constitutional law generally -- and takings law specifically -- between a facial challenge and an as-applied challenge. The window opens on a facial challenge on behalf of everyone when a regulation is adopted, but we thought it was settled that individual property owners had to wait -- upon pain of being tossed out on ripeness grounds --  for the challenged regulation to actually be applied to their facts and circumstances. But the article does not mention the facial vs as-applied distinction.

Standing before incurring a concrete injury? The argument also seems a variation of the Federal Circuit's rationale in Campbell v. United States, 932 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2019), where the court held "[i]n the case of a regulatory taking, however, the taking may occur before the effect of the regulatory action is felt and the actual damage to the property interest is entirely determinable." Disclosure 2: we thought the Federal Circuit's reasoning in that case was faulty (that a property owner has an obligation to sue even before she is actually injured seems very strange), and petitioned for certiorari (denied). But it does seem like a weird rule, and very much at odds with injury-in-fact and Article III standing requirements.

Whither Kirby Forest? The rule also seems at odds with Kirby Forest Indus. v. United States, 467 U.S. 1 (1984), where the Court upheld all sorts of government actions that muck around with an owner's property rights prior to an actual judgment and tender of compensation in eminent domain cases. No, the Court concluded, the "taking" takes place in straight takings when there's been an adjudication of compensation and a tender of actual payment. And all those things which happened before that interfere with the owner's use -- like instituting an eminent domain action, filing a lis pendens and clouding title, drying up the market for the property, and similar -- do not interfere sufficiently with property interests because "petitioner was free to make whatever use it pleased of its property." Id. at 15-16. The California provision seems similar: until the union organizers actually entered Cedar Point property under color of the statute, the owner could exclude whom it wanted.

Too early and too late: You just know that if property owners had challenged the California statute as a taking upon enactment, but before anyone had actually attempted to enter under the authority of the statute, that the claim would not have been that they filed too late, but rather too early. Property owners are used to these type of inconsistent arguments and being whipsawed between being accused of filing too early, or too late (or, in many cases, both too early and too late at the same time). We don't think that the line the courts are going to enforce between ripeness and staleness is as clear as the authors make it out to be.

Get ready for more takings claims, federal courts. Unless the article is arguing for abandoning the remaining takings ripeness requirement (something we're down for, but so far the courts are not), we're not sure that a rule that will force prudent property owners to sue upon adoption of new regulations is one that the courts will enthusiastically embrace (even if they should).

Zombie takings, or zombie statutes? The article describes Cedar Point as a "zombie takings claim" (p. 33) because it challenged a statute originally adopted decades ago. It argues that after about 40 years, regulation ossifies into a background principle, immune from challenge. Even though we'd use the "zombie" label to describe the California statute and others like it that are there on the books but are pretty obscure, let's go with the zombie takings label. That brings up an intriguing tradeoff: would we surrender Cedar Point and the ability to challenge 40 year old regulations in return for eliminating the ripeness hurdle and opening up courts to immediate challenges of newly-adopted regulations as we think the piece is advocating for? Hmmmmm... we gotta think about that one.

Cringe. No matter what, we think that calling the Cedar Point outcome the result of "blunders" by lawyers, judges, and scholars (p. 1), the government's strategy a "goof" (p. 5) and "bad lawyering" (p. 48), its lawyers "bone-headed" (id. at 49 & n.314), and accusing government counsel of committing "a colossal strategic blunder" (id. at 2), and saying that the government's lawyers in Cedar Point and Lucas committed "legal malpractice" (id.), is unnecessary and uncharitable in the extreme. We get that the authors don't care for the outcome in Cedar Point and wish their "Monday-morning quarterbacking" strategy (their words not ours, see p.1) would have been raised and tested. But in our view, these type of accusations should not be thrown about lightly, especially by those who didn't enter the amici arena themselves, and by those who don't appear to have been there, done that because their collective time actually practicing law and making strategic litigation decisions in real time in real cases appears to be, let's say, very limited. We hope there can be even vehement disagreement about the issues without slinging accusations of malfeasance, incompetence, and especially malpractice -- claims the practicing bar takes very, very seriously. We respectfully urge the authors and the law journal editors to reconsider these characterizations prior to print publication. 

We're going to meditate on the article and its arguments more. But whatever you may think of the authors' analysis and conclusions, this piece is well worth reading.

Ice Ice Baby: A Report From The 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Feb 1-4, 2023, Austin

We were eagerly anticipating 40th American Law Institute-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference. The 2022 Conference in Scottsdale was one of the first meetings where everyone was back in-person (and was a smashing success), but that conference was early in the game so not everyone could or would attend. But in the past year most of us got back to some semblance of "normal," and the turnout promised to be good.

We had record registrations: with over 300 attendees, faculty, and staff signed up, things were shaping up.

Plus, we were headed to Austin, Texas. The last time we held the Conference there in 2016, we loved it so much it has been in-demand for a return visit. And this year is the debut Conference for some new planning co-chairs for both the main tracks as well as the "Condemnation 101" tracks, so the buzz for the 2023 Austin Conference was building.

But then the weather reminded us that Mother Nature is often the boss. 

Very Icy Austin on Wednesday (Conference Eve).

On Tuesday, one day before the Conference was to get underway, the 2023 Central Texas Ice Storm blew in and things were gonna get (as they say) "challenging."

Austin Airport effectively shut down with few flights in or out. Planes and cancellations stacked up nationwide. And even for those nearby, slick icy roads, and seemingly everything was closed, from gas stations to hotels to restaurants. Widespread power outages. 

Were we ready with Plan B if people couldn't get on-site? Read on.

Unless you are already here or are driving,
you ain't getting to Austin via AUS any time soon, pard.

Even flying from sunny California was a problem.

Ticket agent: Austin flight cancelled. How about flying to Houston and then driving?

Me: Sure, that'll work. Just get me to Texas and I'll figure it out from there.

Improvise, adapt, overcome: planes, trains, and automobiles (and car rentals, and long-distance rideshares, and four-layovers-from-Boise flights). Jacksonville to Austin via Chicago and Nashville.

Although those of us who made it to Austin were receiving widespread reports of people delayed and rerouted, we had only a handful who said they would not be pressing forward to get here. 

When this is what greets you when you arrive
at your conference site...uh oh.

And yes, Austin was cold and icy. Most things shuttered and widespread loss of power. But the Conference venue was up and running, and throughout the day on Wednesday, faculty, staff, and attendees were showing up. Trickling in, but showing up or on the way.

When this is what you see at the United Airlines
luggage counter, you ask yourself:
Can I make my presentation in a t-shirt and sweats? (Yes!)

We had confidence, and were prepared
for everyone to get to Austin.

So the aforementioned Plan B went into effect. Agenda items shuffled from tomorrow to today because the speaker is here, now. One speaker in the room, one speaker remote. Our audience is full of experts ... say, Billy can you pinch-hit on this panel? Sure. One speaker remoting in from his (unexpected) hotel room in Phoenix and presenting, before he went to the airport in the afternoon to continue on to Austin.

And so forth. Our long-time ALI-CLE Program Attorney, Amy Weinberg (who was delayed out of Philadelphia) was working furiously behind the scenes doing a lot of juggling, updating, texting and calling, and making alternative arrangements. And the tech team from ALI-CLE was preparing for overload if needed.

Plan A: continue to set the room up, assuming everyone is here or on the
way, and we'll have most or all of our people in the room.

Our Planning Chairs were ready, even if not
all of us were actually there (yet).

Plan B: the ALI-CLE technical crew was prepared to livestream
and record the Conference if the weather made travel
to Austin impossible or infeasible.

The tech command center.

Before we go on, a big thank you to our generous sponsors.
Without your support, this Conference would not be as
good as it is, year after year.

We're underway, with a pretty good crowd.

Thursday morning, 9:00 a.m., and we're looking not too bad. A fair number of folks have pressed forward despite the weather and travel disruptions and are in the room. More report they are not tapping out, and are pressing onwards.

We have more viewers remote than we originally anticipated, but the tech is holding up.

Over the next couple of days, our lawyers, judges, legal scholars, appraisers, law students, right-of-way agents, relocation experts, property owners, and other related professionals made their way to Austin.

The fact that folks who were experiencing some rather dramatic travel difficulties and delays (ask Jack about his late night Uber from Houston airport to Austin, or how our west coasters got re-routed all over creation), didn't quit but were determined to get to Austin told us something about why this Conference has been so successful over the decades.

It's more than great programming from the nation's experts. The Conference is also an essential venue to get acquainted with new colleagues and welcome them to the Dirt Law Bar, reconnect with long-time friends, and have a bit of fun together.

Most of the Conference attendees eventually made it, and very few (reasonably) threw in the towel and turned around for home. This was the 40th edition of the Conference, and we really know why it is one of the most-established and successful conferences in the ALI-CLE stable of programs. This year's experience really drove home why we come, and why our attendees and faculty are so dedicated and committed, despite the sacrifices we make to attend or to present. 

Hybrid: Pacific Legal Foundation's John Groen
remoting in while en-route via Phoenix, and
Baylor lawprof Jessica Asbridge on
"Everything Old is New Again: Why Today’s Practitioners
Need to Understand the Original Meaning of the
Takings and Just Compensation Clauses."


The "Condemnation 101" track was wildly popular
both with new members of the Eminent Domain Bar,
as well as old hands. Standing room only throughout the day.

We also had reports from the field that the remote viewing
was going well. Here's how we looked in the
mountains of North Carolina.

Let's not forget the substance of the Conference.
Lots of practical learning. Here's Hawaii's Mark Murakami
and Virginia's Steve Clarke on "Avoiding the Real Jeopardy:  
Structuring Eminent Domain Settlements."
And no, two-time Jeopardy! champion Steve did not
give answers in the form of a question.

Weather throughout Wednesday and Thursday was icy and nasty,
but towards the end of Thursday seemed to be clearing up.

Consequently, the view from the podium looked better and better
with more showing up and more reporting they were nearly there.

The programming at the Conference is traditionally
a mix of practical subjects and the more theoretical.
Here's one of the highlight latter programs,
Alan Ackerman (Michigan), Matthew Ackerman (also Michigan),
and Steve Davis (Missouri) on "What Does the Supreme Court
Mean When it Says Just Compensation is “Self-Executing?"

There's an ethics program, naturally, for those of us in jurisdictions
with mandatory CLE requirements. But we try and not do "typical"
(i.e., boring) ethics programs. Here's Sarah Kellner (Colorado) and
Shane Rayman (Ontario, CN) on "Ethics: Building Your Practice
by Mentoring the Next Generation of Eminent Domain Professionals."

An example of our practice-oriented programming: Tony DellaPelle
(New Jersey), Bernadette Duran-Brown (California), 
and Andrew Lines (Illinois) on "Preparing Your Expert
Witness to Shine in Virtual Proceedings:
Tools and Tips For Trial Lawyers." 

Andrew actually pretended he was far, far away for his "deposition"
when he was in fact one floor up from the Conference room.
Way to go all-in.

Thanks to our generous sponsors, we were able to avoid Austin's
icy roads and have our Mickelthwait barbecue
brought in for lunch. Was it well-received? See for yourself. Line
was through the lobby and nearly out the front door.

Thank you to Texas Supreme Court Justice Jimmy Blacklock
for speaking on "Developing Property Right Issues in Texas,
Questions and Answers with Justice Jimmy Blacklock"
(interviewed by Justin Hodge (Texas)

It was not an echo-chamber either. Here, in a hotly-debated
session, Jeff Redfern (Virginia), Steve Silva (Nevada), and
Lawprof Emilio Longoria (St Mary's Law, Texas)
debate "When the SWAT Team Comes (No) Knocking:
Police Power Takings."

Jeff, Steve, and Prof Longoria's session got everyone's blood pumping.

It wasn't all serious, and we had a bit of fun.
Like this after-hours live edition of the Eminent Domain & Right of Way
Clubhouse with Beth Smith (Wisconsin), Patrick McAllister (Indiana)
and some dude who was having a post-CLE session beer.

Some of our faculty are more formal and like to speak
standing at the lectern. Here, Pacific Legal Foundation's Jon Houghton
(New Jersey) and Ben Stormes (Montana) on
"Avoiding Pitfalls When Trying a Penn Central Case:
Lessons From the Takings Trenches."

Others are less formal, and speak while sitting
(and wildly gesticulating to make sure you are paying attention).
Kristen Renfro (California), and some guy on
"Your Regulatory Takings Case is in Federal Court – Now What?"

By Friday morning, the Austin weather was looking up. Really up.
And we nearly had everyone in the room.
By hook or by crook, most everyone was there.

By Friday were were pretty much back to normal.
Nearly all faculty and all attendees in the room.
And thus we turned it over to our Saturday morning stalwarts,
starting with Jim Burling, here speaking about "The Many Theories of
Property - Do They Matter in Court?" (and Pufendorf)

No one wanted to miss Michael Berger's "Regulatory Takings Update"
on Saturday morning either.

When you can fill this many seats at a CLE conference on a
Saturday morning after two full days of programming,
you know your speakers are the
right ones (thank you Jim and Michael).

After Jim and Michael did their thing, we held our "National Forum,"
a moderated "open-mic" session where Conference attendees
take to the podium and speak about their case or issue,
or crowdsource a question. Here, Pacific Legal
Foundation's Kady Valois, speaking about
our firm's latest takings cert grant.

We were happy to announce that the 41st ALI-CLE Eminent Domain &
Land Valuation Litigation Conference will be held February 1-3, 2024,
at the JW Marriott in New Orleans.
Save the date!

Ivy Cadle (Georgia - Go Dawgs!) is already planning his trip to
#EminentDomain 2024 in New Orleans.
See you there, Ivy.

With the programming wrapped up, it was time for farewells
and thank yous. Here, four of our law students from William and Mary Law,
who took the time out of their schedules to make their way to
Austin for some real-world learning and networking.
Well done, new colleagues!

Even after the proceedings closed, there was more work to be done.
Here, the ALI-CLE Tech Team breaks it down, after successfully
guiding us through the past four days. They are a large part of the
reason why this Conference works so well (plus, they make the
speakers look really good on camera).

To those who joined us - in-person or on-line, thank you. This conference reminded us of why this program is so successful, and why we all return year-after-year.

To those of you who didn't (or couldn't) join us, here's what you missed. You need to remedy that, and come join us next year in New Orleans...

We'll see you in New Orleans for
#EminentDomain2024!
(Want to keep the conversation going in the
interim? Join the ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference
page on LinkedIn.)

"Emerging Issues In Property Rights" - Wednesday, February 8, 2023, 3-4pm ET (Free!)

Join our Pacific Legal Foundation colleagues Jon Houghton, Daniel Woislaw, Kady Valois, and Sam Spiegelman (moderating) tomorrow, Wednesday, February 8, 2023, at 3:00 - 4:00 p.m. ET for a free webinar, "Emerging Issues in Property Rights."

Here's the agenda:

Protecting private property rights has been at the heart of PLF’s work since our founding in 1973. Our view, and that of the American Founders, is that property rights are foundational to all other constitutional rights.

Our relentless defense of property rights has secured many precedented victories, including 12 property rights wins at the U.S. Supreme Court—and counting.

Unfortunately, even today, the need for property rights champions remains critical.

Government officials too often relegate property rights to second-class status among Americans’ constitutional rights—cloaking their assaults in erroneous assertions of environmental protection or cleverly constructed land use restrictions.

To learn more about property rights’ legal landscape in 2023, join us for part two of our four-part webinar series, Emerging Issues in Property Rights. Our panel of PLF attorneys will preview the road ahead for property rights and strategies to restore these fundamental rights to their rightful constitutional status.

Join us, and register here (free!).

(Nearly) Last Call: There's Still Time To Join Us For The 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Feb 1-4, Austin

We really want you there...

One (nearly) last reminder that there's still time to register for your space at the 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, February 1-4, 2023, in Austin. In the past several years, we have sold out due to the conference room capacity and the conference hotel block. But there's still space, although we are nearly full. So register now - don't delay any further! 

Here's the brochure with the complete agenda, schedule, and faculty listing. But to tempt you, here are some of the highlights of the program:

• Everything Old is New Again: Why Today’s Practitioners Need to Understand the Original Meaning of the Takings and Just Compensation Clauses
  
• When the SWAT Team Comes (No) Knocking: Police Power Takings

• Private Utility Takeovers – Lessons From a 67 Day Trial

• "Contraband": How Property Rights Helped Pave the Way for Civil Rights

• Valuation Issues When Billboards and Signs are Condemned

• Setting Client Expectations and Identifying Red Flags

• Preparing Your Expert Witness to Shine in Virtual Proceedings: Tools and Tips for Trial Lawyers

• Developing Property Right Issues in Texas - Questions and Answers from the Bench (with Texas Supreme Court Justice Jimmy Blacklock)

• Eminent Domain and Regulatory Takings Updates: Important Decisions You Need to Know

• Ethics: Building Your Practice by Mentoring the Next Generation of Eminent Domain Lawyers

• the Condemnation 101 program (a one-day course for those new to the practice, or for experienced practitioners wanting a refresher)
• ...and much more!

To register, go here.

Looking forward to seeing everyone in Austin for the 40th edition of the Conference.

Program Brochure, 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Austin, Texas, Feb 1-...

The Good The Bad And The Ugly: There's Something For Everyone In This Florida Takings Opinion

Here's the latest from a case we've featured here before.

There's something for everyone in the Florida District Court of Appeal (Second District)'s opinion in Jamieson v. Town of Fort Myers Beach, No. 2D21-2722 (Dec. 29, 2022).

Let's start with the outcome: the court reversed the trial court's summary judgment in a wetlands takings case, sending the matter back for a trial. Sounds good.

But let's back up a sec. The case started a long time ago, when Jamieson's seven-acre residentially-zoned property was designated as a wetland, resulting in a use density decline from 40 buildable lots to zero (wetlands density is one residence per 20 acres). For a decade, Jamieson tried to "change and/or correct the wetlands designation[.]" Slip op. at 3. The opinion lists out his efforts. He tried for

an application for boundary clarification regarding the extent of the wetlands, a request to transfer the residential density from the affected lots to another parcel, a request for an administrative determination that the wetlands designation was inaccurate as demonstrated by a South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) survey that determined that the property was only sixty-one percent wetland, a request for a minimum use determination (MUD) to establish that the platted lots were entitled to residential development despite being "nonconforming," and a request for a variance from the Town's Land Development Code to allow development in accordance with state guidelines, which allowed development on wetlands with mitigation.

Slip op. at 3-4 (footnote omitted).

When "[a]ll of his efforts failed[,]" he filed a Bert Harris Act notice of claim. In response, the Town offered to settle by removing the wetlands designation on three lots, provided Jamieson surrender development rights on the remaining 37 lots. No thanks, he replied, and sued for a taking, both a Lucas categorical, and a Penn Central ad hoc.

As you might predict, this was just the opening of the second phase of his odyssey. The trial court granted the Town summary judgment on ripeness (which the court of appeal eventually reversed). The court of appeal reversed and remanded.

Back in the trial court, after a series of cross-motions for summary judgment (see page 5 of the slip opinion), the court denied Jamieson's motions, and again granted the Town's.

Back up to the court of appeal.

The Good: The court rejected the trial court's rationale for granting the Town summary judgment on Jamieson's categorical takings claim. The trial court relied on a footnote in the court of appeal's earlier opinion on ripeness to conclude that the takings issue had been resolved by the court of appeal and this merits ruling was law of the case. The logic goes like this: if Jamieson had not rejected the Town's settlement offer, he could have developed his property. In short: "you were willing to settle the case, so that proves that the wetlands designation hasn't deprived your property of all economically beneficial uses."

The court of appeal said no, the mention of the offer of settlement in the prior ripeness decision was only to show that the Town's position about uses of the Jamieson property was known "to a reasonable degree of certainty" and the case was therefore ripe, and decidedly did not resolve the merits (and indeed, the inferences the trial court should have drawn from the situation were that the Town was likely to reject the settlement even if Jamieson had accepted it).

The court also reversed the grant of summary judgment to the Town on Jamieson's Penn Central takings claim. These are "ad hoc" factors, and lack any 'set formula" and thus cannot be determined by summary judgment. Factual inquiries require a trial.

The Bad: But the court also rejected Jamieson's argument he is entitled to win his Bert Harris Act claim. Noting first that the claim might be untimely ("it appears that Jamieson may not have been entitled to assert a Bert Harris Act claim to begin with" slip op. at 15 [oof]), the opinion pointed out that the trial court never ruled on this issue. Thus, it remanded the claim, first providing a bit of guidance "[s]hould the trial court find that Jamieson's Bert Harris Act claim is not time-barred[.]" Slip op. at 16.

The short story here is that the Town's wetlands designation was not dispositive either way under the Act's "inordinately burdened" standard. The designation may be a factor, but that must be weighed against other factors (see the list on page 17). No summary judgment here for either party, and "these are issues of fact that must be brought to light in a trial[.]" Slip op. at 17. 

The Ugly: The court doubled down on the unfortunate mislabeling of takings claim that appear from time to time in Florida courts. See for example page 5, where the opinion contrasts "total" or "per se" takings (i.e., categorical Lucas wipeouts), with "partial" or "as-applied" takings (what the court labels ad hoc Penn Central takings). This doesn't appear to be an error of substance, but one of labeling. But as we know, preciseness matters here, in an area of law that is already confusing enough. "Partial" takings are not Penn Central takings, but takings of less than an entire interest in property (an easement, for example). And "as-applied" takings are also not Penn Central takings, but rather the format of a challenge (whether the plaintiff is claiming the government action is facially unconstitutional or only as applied to her property).

Jamieson v. Town of Fort Myers Beach, No. 2D21-2722 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2022)

CA5: No Jurisdiction Over Federal Takings Claims Against A State

A quick one (2 page, per curiam) from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to send you into the holiday.

In Devillier v. Texas, No. 21-40750 (Nov. 12, 2022), the court summarily concluded that "the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide a right to action for takings against a state[.]" Slip op. at 1-2.

This is a very short opinion. Here's the entirety of the decision (minus footnotes):

The State of Texas appeals the district court’s decision that Plaintiffs’ federal Taking Clause claims against the State may proceed in federal court. Because we hold that the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide a right of action for takings claims against a state, we VACATE the district court’s decision for want of jurisdiction and REMAND with instructions to return this case to the state courts. The Supreme Court of Texas recognizes takings claims under the federal and state constitutions, with differing remedies and constraints turning on the character and nature of the taking; nothing in this description of Texas law is intended to replace its role as the sole determinant of Texas state law. As such, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review these claims.

That's it.

The district court concluded otherwise, holding property owners could sue the State of Texas in federal court for inverse condemnation under the U.S. and Texas Constitutions' just compensation clauses. 

Devillier v. State of Texas, No. 21-40750 (5th Cir. Nov. 23, 2022) (per curiam)

Here's The Program For The 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Feb 1-4, 2023, Austin

Here it is, the official agenda and program for the 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, February 2-4, 2023 (with a special event the evening of Wednesday, February 1, 2023 to entice you to arrive early).

Here's the brochure with the complete agenda, schedule, and faculty listing. But to tempt you, here are some of the highlights of the program:

• Everything Old is New Again: Why Today’s Practitioners Need to Understand the Original Meaning of the Takings and Just Compensation Clauses

• Private Utility Takeovers – Lessons From a 67 Day Trial

• Valuation Issues When Billboards and Signs are Condemned

• Setting Client Expectations and Identifying Red Flags

• Developing Property Right Issues in Texas - Questions and Answers from the Bench: A View From the Bench (with Texas Supreme Court Justice Jimmy Blacklock)

• Eminent Domain and Regulatory Takings Updates: Important Decisions You Need to Know

• Ethics: Building Your Practice by Mentoring the Next Generation of Eminent Domain Lawyers

• ...and much more!

To register, go here.

Register now and hold your space. In the past several years, we have sold out due to the conference room capacity, and the conference hotel block. So don't delay. 

Looking forward to seeing everyone in Austin for the 40th edition of the Conference.

Program Brochure, 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Austin, Texas, Feb 1-...

Let's Take A Deeper Look At Takings Ripeness, Ninth Circuit

Well, that was quick. As we noted here, we recently argued a case in the Ninth Circuit (October 20, 2022) about whether a regulatory takings claim is ripe. 

Not long after we posted the argument recording, the Ninth Circuit panel issued a short memorandum opinion rejecting our arguments wholesale (November 1, 2022).

So earlier this week, we asked the entire Ninth Circuit to take a look. Here's our en banc petition.

We'll leave it to you to read it and see why we think this one is ripe.

Appellants' Petition for Rehearing En Banc, Ralston v. San Mateo Cnty., No 21-16489 (9th Cir. Nov. 15, 2022...

CA9 Takings Ripeness Oral Arguments: Must Property Owners Secure Govt's Agreement That Property Is Subject To Challenged Regulations Before A Court Can Review?

October 20, 2022 was what one advocate noted was "land use day at the Ninth Circuit," because three out of the four cases being argued in Courtroom 3 of the San Francisco courthouse were indeed land use -- or perhaps more accurately, regulatory takings -- cases.

Ours was one of those cases, Ralston v. San Mateo County.

Without going into too much detail, this is an appeal from the district court's 12(b)(6) dismissal of our regulatory takings complaint. The crux of the claim is that Ralston's R-1 zoned property is subject to an "overlay" district called the Montecito Riparian Corridor, a highly-restricted zone that allows only 5 environmental uses of land within the zone (none of which are consistent with the R-1 zoning). (Ralston's property is labeled "076-19" on the County's MRC map.)

Absent some kind of special dispensation -- what the County calls an "override" -- the County cannot grant a Coastal Development Permit for a residential use in accordance with the R-1 zoning, because CDPs must be consistent with both the Residential zoning, and the MRC overlay.

Following the County's instructions that "[a]ny intention to proceed with an application for development that would run counter to any of those policies must first be throughly [sic] reviewed by the Community Development Director and County Counsel[,]" Ralston did ask the Planning (Community Development) Director. He received what he thought was a pretty definite response: no development in the MRC, and no override.

But the County argued the Planning Director's response wasn't an official denial, and the district court agreed, holding that the case was not ripe under the "final decision" rule of Williamson County, because the County might have granted a waiver of the MRC restrictions and issued a CDP for a residence, if only Ralston had asked the right way by applying for a CDP and then exhausted the County's review process.

In addition to that issue, the focus of yesterday's oral arguments was also on a slightly different issue: the panel questioned the advocates (esp. me!) about whether, to ripen the claim, the County must also have confirmed that indeed, Ralston's property is subject to the above-mentioned MRC restrictions. The complaint alleged it is (see, e.g., the County's map, above). The location of the MRC is determined by how much of a property is covered by certain vegetation, and indeed, Ralston's property is covered, stem-to-stern with arroyo willow, one of the species listed in the County ordinance.

"It is like a finger, pointing a way to the subject property,
back there by the big dead pine tree..."

We argue that alleging this -- which as a factual allegation must be taken as true at this stage -- is enough to ripen the claim, but the County and the Coastal Commission assert that Ralston must have obtained the County's final confirmation that his property is subject to the MRC regulations, before his lawsuit was ripe. In other words, whether this property is indeed at least 50% covered in arroyo willow is not a fact question (for pleading), but rather a scientific and technical legal question that the County must first be given a chance to exercise its discretion about, via some kind of application and official response from the County.

Stream the arguments above, or download the mp3 (big file!) here. And along with us, keep your fingers crossed for a favorable result from the panel.

Stay tuned.

Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference Wrap-Up

The William and Mary Law School has posted David Morrill's summary of the recent Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference.

In addition to a full day of academic and practicing bar speakers on Friday, and the award banquet on Thursday evening, the Conference included two full days of student-oriented programming earlier in the week, where practicing land use and property rights spoke about their practices, the hot topics in the field, and how they ended up in this practice area. Every session was well attended, as the photos from the events show.

Check it out. And please join us at future Conferences!

Congratulations On Reaching The "Century" Milestone, Eminent Domain Podcast!

That's right: Clint Schumacher's Eminent Domain Podcast has reached its 100th episode. Very impressive, Clint!

And for this "very special episode," Clint was kind enough to ask us to return to celebrate. In a wide-ranging hour-plus chat, Clint and I talked property rights and takings of course, but also hit on several more philosophical subjects. If you could have coffee with any historical figure who would you choose? Pharaoh Khufu? Jack the Ripper? Winston Churchill? What person has influenced your life the most? What's on tap for the 2023 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference in Austin? If you had to choose a last meal, what would it be (for me, an easy question)? Clint is a generous host (and person), so I really had a good time.

One note: Clint makes it seem seamless, but I know that the behind-the-scenes process of putting together an episode is a heckuva lot of work, especially if you add it up over 100 episodes and several years, week in and week out. He's too modest to claim kudos, but I am not so reticent: we should all say a big thank you to Clint for putting the podcast out there and keeping us tied together. Please pass on your appreciation! 

We wrapped up by Clint promising me that I could be the guest on his 200th episode. I look forward to it, friend.

Still Time To Join Us (In-Person Or Remote) For The 19th Annual Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference

One last reminder that there' still time to register for the upcoming Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference at the William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia, September 29-30, 2022. If you can't make it to the historic campus, there's an option to attend remotely.

In our opinion, the Conference is the best of its kind because it brings together legal scholars and the practicing bar to talk dirt law theory and practice. We also a have a full supplemental program for law students, that covers property law and careers in eminent domain law, a recruiting session, a program on international property rights, and a program on land use law.

Registration for the Conference is ongoing, and you can sign up here.

Here is the full agenda. (We'll be speaking on Panel #2, "Reshaping the Framework Protecting Property Under the Roberts Court.")

Come on, join us!

 

CA2: Land Use Challenge (Not Takings) Is Ripe - Govt Gave Its Final "No"

Check out the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's opinion in Village Green of Sayville, LLC v. Town of Islip, No. 19-3353 (Aug. 5, 2022), a case in which the court held the Town reached a final decision denying Village Green's request to develop a 64-unit apartment complex on Long Island.

Final decision ripeness under the surviving part of Williamson County, you say? So this is a takings case, right? No, not quite. The claims asserted by the developer  included a takings claim (although it seems to have played a more minor role) and the claims were mostly about the Town allegedly discriminating against affordable housing and the people who build and live in affordable housing. See slip op. at 11.

But as you know, many courts -- including the Second Circuit -- apply Williamson County's final decision ripeness requirements to anything vaguely land usey. Even RLUIPA and ADA claims (yes, ADA claims). Why there needs to be a special ripeness requirement applicable only to "land use" cases, and why the courts cannot simply apply the usual federal court ripeness rules applicable to, you know, every other type of challenge, isn't really clear to us, except that federal courts just don't like to deal with land use cases.

But let's put that aside here, because as the title of this post notes, the Second Circuit actually allowed this land use claim to move forward. Since the ripeness issues turned on what the Town did or didn't do, it's worth a walk-through of what the developer wanted to do, what it asked the Town to do, and how the Town reacted.

As we noted above, the case involved the developer wanting to build affordable housing. It obtained a rezoning of the property from Business to Residence, but the rezone was subject to two conditions, one involving the ability to rent the units and the other about the property's sewer lines. Those conditions became a sticking point, and eventually the developer asked the Town to allow it to develop the 64 units without the conditions. "Local opposition was strong." Slip op. at 6.

Town officials seemed to have reacted to that opposition by doing what they could to avoid saying yes to the proposal, while also avoiding saying no. Eighteen months elapsed, and the Planning Board finally considered approving: "Put to a vote, though, the seven-member Planning Board failed to pass the motion: After the vice chairman recused himself, the vote was 3-3 and deemed a 'non-action.'" Slip op. at 7. The usual pattern ensued - the developer submitted a more modest application with more public goodies included. That did not assuage the opposition. "Members of the public again made hostile comments, discussing 'Section 8' and 'transients,' and pledging that townspeople 'will not forget if this project is approved.'" Slop op. at 7-8.

Four months later, the developer's application was back on the Planning Board's agenda. But no deal, and consideration it was again continued. Two weeks later, the same. This time, the motion to approve the application was at least made. But since no Board member seconded the motion, no vote was held. The Town's lawyer let the developer know that the failed motion to approve was being treated as a denial and that "no further proceedings before the Town Board, Planning Board, or any other Town Agency would be held." Slip op. at 9.

Next stop, U.S. District Court. Despite its lawyer's earlier statement that the application process was done, in court the Town argued otherwise, claiming that it had not been given the opportunity to commit to a position. Slip op. at 24. Having never voted on the application, the Town argued, it can't be said to have made a final decision denying the development, no?

The Second Circuit held no:

The parties seem to agree a no-vote on November 17, 2016, would have ripened the dispute. But because the Town Board declined to give its position this way, we must assess the more unusual route it did take: first, noting in an official resolution that the “motion to approve fails for lack of second,” App’x at 317; then apparently choosing to “treat[] the failed motion to approve as a denial of the application” and promising that no town agency would hear anything further on the matter; App’x at 32-33 ¶ 67; and finally, true to that promise, scheduling no further proceedings on the application in the almost six years since.

We conclude that, through this sequence of events, the Town Board demonstrated its “arriv[al] at a definitive position on the issue that inflict[ed] an actual, concrete injury” on Village Green.

Slip op. at 25-26.

The fact that it took the court 30 pages of opinion, and that it was even a close call, tells you what you need to know about the ruling. Sure, it's the proper result. But at the same time, the case highlights how reluctant courts are to hold the government's feet to the fire not only where the government plainly is trying to avoid making a decision, but as here, where the Town's lawyer actually told the developer "no mas."

It shouldn't be that hard. 

Village Green at Sayville, LLC v. Town of Islip, No. 19-3353 (2d Cir. Aug. 5, 2022)

Links From CRE's "Supreme Court Update: Is This Property's Moment?"

Here are the links to the cases and other materials that we mentioned (and some we didn't) earlier today at the Counselors of Real Estate's program on "Supreme Court Update: Is This Property's Moment?" Thank you to our colleagues at CRE for including us in the program.

I.  The evolving ground rules

• Takings cases can go to federal court:
  • Condemnation: PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey (eminent domain and the 11th Amendment)
  • Inverse and regulatory: Knick v. Township of Scott (opening back up federal courts to takings claims).
• How you define the “property” taken is key:
  • Murr v. Wisconsin (the larger parcel issue, applied in regulatory takings cases).
  • Koontz (money as property ... and exactions).
  • Brandt (easements, vel non)
• The exclusion “stick” is really important:
  • Any distinction between “permanent” and “temporary” takings is a matter of valuation, not liability: Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid. 
  • Horne v. USDA (II) (California raisins and physical invasions)
  • Arkansas Game (physical invasions, again).
•  Remedies:
  • The remedy for a “taking” isn’t limited to just compensation: Horne v. USDA (I).
  • Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (preliminary injunctions, diesel-electric submarines, and Pearl Harbor).

 II.  Issues on the horizon

• Compensation and timing:
  • what to do when the condemnor doesn’t promptly pay up?
  • what is the date of valuation?
• Ability of condemnor to define the taken property:
  • Is there an obligation to value severance damages?
  • Fee take vs easement.
  • Temporary vs permanent.
• Does the Constitution protect property’s use, or value? Police power or takings?
• Whither Yee and the future of the physical occupation rule.
• Are eviction moratoria “takings?”
• Can you really get to federal court and stay there?
• The undivided fee rule ... constitutional?

CA6: State Officials Enjoy 11th Amendment Immunity From Just Compensation Claims In Federal Court

In Skatemore, Inc. v. Whitmer, No. 21-2985 (July 19, 2022), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that neither the Just Compensation Clause, nor the Fourteenth Amendment abrogated the states' immunity from being sued in federal court for compensation for takings.

This is another one of those cases where -- due to Co-19 -- businesses forced to close or limit operations by the state (here, Michigan) brought regulatory takings claims in federal court. The claims included takings, and the relief sought was just compensation (no prospective injunction or declaratory judgment). The complaint named state officials (in their official capacities) and state agencies as the defendants. The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. 

The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court rejected the argument that a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from being haled into a federal court without consent does not apply in takings claims seeking just compensation. It concluded that the Supreme Court in Knick didn't recognize such an exception, distinguishing that case's holding that a property owner has a claim for compensation that may be vindicated in federal court when her property has been taken, because in Knick the defendant was a local government and not the state. Local governments are not covered by the Eleventh Amendment. See slip op. at 8-9.

Next, the court made short work of the argument that the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment altered the immunity states enjoy from being sued in federal courts. Slip op. at 9. "This argument is meritless." Id. The Fourteenth Amendment only empowers Congress to enforce its provisions with legislation, and "[r]emedies against states under the 14th Amendment are created by legislation, not by other constitutional amendments." Id. [So something like section 1983?] The court also rejected the argument that states consented to federal court jurisdiction by ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment. Slip op. at 10. 

Skatemore, Inc. v. Whitmer, No. 21-2985 (6th Cir. July 19, 2022)

CA1 Splits With CA9: "[T]he Fifth Amendment precludes the impairment or discharge of prepetition claims for just compensation in Title III bankruptcy."

Here's the latest in an issue we've been following for a while. You recall that several years ago, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit held there's nothing particularly special about an unresolved takings claim for just compensation that sets it apart from other creditor claims in a government bankruptcy.

The Ninth Circuit majority held that owners who assert their property was taken by the debtor-government before the bankruptcy -- but who have not been compensated -- are just unsecured creditors who must "share[] the pain" of the government going broke and sloughing off debt, even if it means that as a result the owner has had its property taken without just compensation. See "Ninth Circuit: Inverse Condemnation Plaintiff Must "Share The Pain" - City Can Shed Obligation To Pay Just Compensation In Bankruptcy, Which Is 'Purely A Monetary Claim'."

Next up, Round 2: In In re Financial Oversight & Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Cooperative de Ahorro y Credito Abraham Rosa, No. 22-1119 (July 18, 2022), the First Circuit went the other way.

Here's the setup. Puerto Rico property owners had claims for just compensation against the Commonwealth. One set of owners was (allegedly) owed compensation for the straight-up eminent domain-ing of their land by quick-take; they claimed the deposits didn't cover the actual amount of compensation. The other group of owners had inverse claims. The court noted that "[f]or purposes of this appeal, all parties agree that the Commonwealth ... took private property from at least some of the takings claimants before petitioning for [bankruptcy]." Slip op. at 18. That agreement would have consequences in the court's later analysis, so remember this point.

The Commonwealth's petition ("perhaps the largest and most consequential public bankruptcy in the nation's history") sought relief for "sovereign debt ... under Title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act." Slip op. at 8. The Commonwealth's reorganization plan proposed to treat the claims of the property owners as general unsecured debt, payable "at a pro-rata share of the overall recovery for general unsecured creditors." Slip op. at 12. In other words, likely pennies on the dollar, if that. 

The property owners objected: hold on, we have had our property taken without compensation, and our claims are not plain-old unsecured debt because the constitution says we get just (full) compensation. Thus, a claim for compensation can't be wiped out in bankruptcy. Confirming the plan would leave us holding the bag, and thus, the court can't confirm the plan with our claims listed as unsecured debt. 

And guess what? The Title III court agreed, and "directed the Board to modify the plan of adjustment to provide for full payment of any valid eminent domain and inverse condemnation claims if the Board wished to make the plan confirmable." Slip op. at 12-13. The Board did so (while reserving its right to appeal, which it eventually did).

The First Circuit started off by noting that the "appeal raises important questions about the interplay between the power to equitably restructure debts in bankruptcy and the Constitution's requirement that just compensation be paid whenever the government takes private property for public use." Slip op. at 8. Let's get to the holding first:

[O]therwise valid Fifth Amendment takings claims arising prepetition cannot be discharged in Title III bankruptcy proceedings without payment of just compensation.

Slip op. at 9. And by "just" compensation, the court meant whatever full compensation is owed to the owners. How did the court reach this result? Read on.

First, the court rejected the federal government's argument that this isn't a constitutional right vs bankruptcy power issue at all, but that the Article III court's holding was merely it exercising its equitable powers. No, the court concluded, "we read the Title III court's ruling to say precisely what it appears to say: that discharging valid, prepetition takings claims for less than just compensation would violate the Fifth Amendment and render a plan providing for such discharge unconfirmable under PROMESA." Slip op. at 16.

Next, having rejected the feds' invitation to avoid the constitutional question, the court concluded, "we move on to assessing whether the Fifth Amendment precludes the impairment or discharge of prepetition claims for just compensation in Title III bankruptcy. For the following reasons, we conclude that it does." Slip op. at 18. Can bankrupt governments "eliminate their obligation to pay just compensation and instead pay only reduced amounts based on a formula applicable to most creditors[?]" Slip op. at 19. The court held no.

First, "the Supreme Court has been very clear: the bankruptcy laws are subordinate to the Takings Clause." Slip op. at 20. Bankruptcy laws are subject to the Fifth Amendment.

Second, the court rejected the Commonwealth's argument that the Fifth Amendment protects only property held by the owners at the time of the bankruptcy. And because their real property had already been taken by the Commonwealth -- either through expropriation by eminent domain, or inversely taken by seizures -- the only "property" possessed by the owners at the time of the bankruptcy were unsecured claims.

The Commonwealth -- get this -- relied on Knick for that argument. Yes, you read that right. Because the right to compensation "arises at the time of the taking" the theory goes, the claim doesn't arise later when the government denies compensation. And by the time the goverment denies compensation, the owners have already lost their real property: "because the takings at issue here all occurred prepetition, the [Commonwealth] contends, any constitutional violation would have arisen only at the time of the taking." Slip op. at 22. The Commonwealth asserted therefore, that compensation is "untethered from the substantive Takings Clause violation itself." Id. 

The First Circuit rightly held no, that Knick does not "cast doubt on the Fifth Amendment's requirement that just compensation be paid." Id. And here's the critical part:

Recognizing that the "right to full compensation arises at the time of the taking," id., does not imply that the subsequent denial of that compensation does not also raise Fifth Amendment concerns. We decline to read Knick as changing the Fifth Amendment right to receive just compensation into a mere monetary obligation that may be dispensed with by statute.

Id.

The court rejected an argument that the Fifth Amendment protects only rights in specific property, and not unsecured claims for money. Slip op. at 23. That isn't looking at the issue the right way, the court noted. This isn't a question of "whether a bankruptcy law has effected a taking of property" (i.e., whether bankruptcy law wiped out the ability to enforce a contract or other claim), but rather "whether the denial of just compensation for a taking" that "no one disputes" has occurred violates the right to compensation. Slip op. at 24.

Having disposed of that argument, the court next rejected the contention that "nothing about a claim for just compensation makes it any different for bankruptcy purposes than a claim for money damages for any other kind of constitutional violation." Slip op. at 25. Relying on the "language and nature of the Takings Clause," the First Circuit held that "compensation is different in kind from other monetary remedies." Slip op. at 26. The court concluded:

Just compensation then does not serve only as a remedy for a constitutional wrong; it serves also as a structural limitation on the government's very authority to take private property for public use. As the Court has stated, "where the government's activities have already worked a taking . . . , no subsequent action by the government can relieve it of the duty to provide compensation." Id. at 321. Simply put, the Fifth Amendment contemplates a "constitutional obligation to pay just compensation."

Id. (citing First English, 482 U.S. at 315).

Thus, the court concluded, "payment of just compensation [is] unlike most other instances in which the government engages in a constitutional violation and is required to remedy that violation by paying money." Id.

The court expressly rejected the Ninth Circuit's reasoning in the Stockton case. Instead, the First Circuit found "the dissenting opinion of Judge Friedland in that case to be more persuasive." Slip op. at 27. Dissenting in Stockton, Judge Friedland wrote:

The majority instead holds that Cobb has forfeited all property rights in the condemned parcel under California law, and that his pending claim is "simply" a statutory claim for monetary damages. But the statutory character of Cobb’s claim does not diminish its constitutionally protected status—indeed, a constitutional claim for just compensation is a statutory claim for monetary damages under California law.

Here's how the First Circuit wrapped up:

Reduced to its nub, the issue we decide is rather simple. The Fifth Amendment provides that if the government takes private property, it must pay just compensation. Because the prior plan proposed by the Board rejected any obligation by the Commonwealth to pay just compensation, the Title III court properly found that the debtor was prohibited by law from carrying out the plan as proposed.

Slip op. at 30-31.

Naturally, given our view that Stockton was ever-so-wrong, we feel validated by the First Circuit here. So remember that part-and-parcel of the power to take property is the corresponding obligation to, you know, actually pay for it. All of it. And anything that interferes with that right, whether it is, as here, a Congressional bankruptcy statute, a state statute, or anything else must yield to the Just Compensation imperative.

In re Financial Oversight & Mgmt Bd for Puerto Rico v. Cooperative de Ahorro y Credito Abraham Rosa, No. 22...

Here's The Full Speaker And Topic List For The Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference (Sep 29-30, 2022)

By now, you know that the 19th Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference is set for September 29-30, 2022, at the William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia (register here - space is limited - fee ranges from free to $195 - a bargain!). And you know that our colleague Jim Burling is this year's B-K Prize winner.

But now you know who is speaking at the Conference, and the topics: here's the full agenda. The list of speakers is too long to list here but check out these topics:

• Panel 1: The Importance of Property Rights: A Tribute to James S. Burling
• Panel 2: Reshaping the Framework Protecting Property Under the Roberts Court (that's the panel we're speaking on)
  
• Roundtable: Emerging Issues in Takings and Property Rights Litigation
• Panel 3: Choosing A Property Regime
• Panel 4: Property Rights in Times of Scarcity and Crisis

Who can resist these subjects? Plan on joining join us in September.

2022 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference Speaker Panels

You Can Sue Utah For Compensation In State Court, So No Injunction In Federal Court

No smoking in Hatu

A short one from the U.S. District Court in Utah, but worth reading because it highlights one of those unresolved issues: the remedy for a "takings" claim.

Now, you've heard the Supreme Court describe just compensation as the "default" remedy for regulatory takings and inverse claims. But it isn't the only remedy, is it? 

Well, in this Order, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah seems to think so. At least it is in federal court.

Utah adopted a statute that prohibits tobacco businesses from operating within 1000 feet of a school. Smoke shops sued in federal court for a taking under section 1983 and other things (due process, First Amendment, &c.). The defendant was not the State of Utah because, you know, you can't sue a state for money in federal court unless it consents. So as in other cases, the smoke shops sued state officials (in their official capacity), and limited the relief sought to a prospective injunction, including a TRO.

To get a temporary injunction, the standards are pretty much the same as a permanent injunction, and "[i]t is well settled that interim equitable relief is only available when a plaintiff can obtain at least some final equitable relief." Slip op. at 2. And that was the problem here: according to the court, you can't enjoin a taking "as long as an adequate provisions for obtaining just compensation exists." Id. And "because the federal and nearly all state governments provide just compensation remedies to property owners who have suffered a taking, equitable relief is generally unavailable." Id. (quoting Knick v. Twp. of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162, 2176 (2019). 

Utah is one of those states that "provide just compensation remedies." In state courts, only of course. Because the state itself and its officials (in their official capacities) are not "persons" under section 1983. But property owners can sue the state and its officials for compensation for a taking under the Utah Constitution.

Ah, the district court concluded, that means the property owners cannot get the injunctive relief they are asking for in federal court, because they can go to state court and get compensation. Slip op. at 3 ("But Plaintiffs may bring an inverse condemnation action against Utah in state court under Article I, section 22 of the Utah Constitution to recover just compensation for a regulatory taking.").

Whoa, you say that sounds a lot like the now-defunct "state procedures" ripeness requirement from (overruled) Williamson County? Courts elsewhere seem to think that equitable relief against a state is available (see here also) if you can't get compensation in federal court. (Yes, we get that in those cases, the allegation is that the government is wrongfully keeping money belonging to the plaintiffs, but that seems like a thin reed).

Check out this post for more on our thoughts about whether a federal court may grant equitable relief against state officials for takings claims.

Memorandum Decision and Order, Exotic Smoke & Vape v. Cox, No. 2:22-cv-408 (D. Utah June 28, 2020)

New Cert Petition: Copyright Or Takings? (And State 11th Amendment Immunity)

Here's the latest - a cert petition in a case (and an issue) we've been following that asks can a government action that is a violation of copyright also be a taking?

Bynum wrote, researched, and edited a book, a biography of Texas A & M's famed "12th Man" of the football squad. During his research, he met with officials from the university's athletic department and later emailed them a "PDF of the full book," noting that it was not final and only for the recipient's review. 

Next up, trouble: the official (allegedly) "directed his secretary to re-type the Biography and to remove any reference to Bynum of to Epic Sports' copyright information. [The official] rewrote the PDF's byline to [indicate that another author had written the book] and changed the title. And "[o]ver the next 72 hours, the Department disseminated the full Biography to hundreds of thousands of recipients" and posted it on the school's website, Tweeted a link to the book, and quoted from the book.

Bynum was not happy. Eventually, the school removed the book from the website. But not good enough (cat was out of the bag), so Bynum sued in federal court for copyright violations and for a taking. The district court dismissed.

When the Fifth Circuit got the case, it affirmed. Copyright violations are trespasses (torts) and not takings, and Texas is immune from takings suits in federal court.

Here are the Questions Presented:

After this Court’s decision in Allen v. Cooper, 140 S. Ct. 994 (2020), damages remedies for copyright infringements by state governments depend on either showing an actual constitutional violation (as well as a statutory one) under United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006), or—perhaps—asserting a free-standing takings claim under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Fifth Circuit’s categorical rejection of both these avenues in this case raises three questions:

1. Can copyright infringement constitute an actual constitutional violation on a takings theory or, as the Fifth Circuit held, is infringement never a taking?

2. Is a hypothetical state remedy that state courts have never recognized sufficiently “clear and certain,” Nat’l Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm’n, 515 U.S. 582, 587 (1995), to prevent an actual due process violation?

3. Does state sovereign immunity bar takings claims altogether, notwithstanding this Court’s holding in Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019), that the Takings Clause mandates a compensatory remedy in federal court?

Stay tuned. We'll keep watching.

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Canada Hockey, L.L.C. v. Texas A & M University Athletic Dep't, No. ____...

CA6: Dammed If You Do - Takings Claim Is Ripe When Govt Decides To Physically Invade And You Don't Need To Wait 'Til It Actually Invades

We've been meaning to post the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit's opinion in Barber v. Charter Twp of Springfield, No. 20-2298 (Apr. 11, 2022) for a while because it emphasizes an important point about "final decision" ripeness, and the sometimes ridiculous arguments made to support an argument that a takings claim isn't ripe.

In many situations a takings claim is backwards looking, and seeks compensation or some other remedy for something the government has already done. You flooded my property, or your project encroached on my land, or you designated my property for future acquisition and prevented me from using it in the interim are good examples. But not always. Sometimes takings claims are forward looking. Your regulations require me to allow a cable TV company to install a box on my building's roof, or you are threatening to open my private marina to public navigation. Do you have to wait for the bad thing to happen in order to get a court to review your takings claim?

Back to our case. Barber owns land next to Mill Pond Dam, built in 1836 (wow). Apparently, the old dam was not going to hold up forever. After looking at a number of options, the Township and the County decided that removing the dam was the best option. Or at least that's what it looked like they decided. The Township hired engineers and included the removal project in its budget. Its web site noted that "the project has moved to the next phase which included preliminary engineering and conceptual park design." And the local newspaper reported that "Mill Pond Dam to be Removed Next Year."

Barber asserted that removal of the dam would have all sorts of bad impacts on her adjacent land, including flooding of her house. State court inverse and takings claim (§ 1983) followed. "She sought to enjoin the Dam-removal project, alleging that it would constitute a taking under the federal and Michigan constitutions and a trespass under Michigan law." Slip op. at 3.

The Township and the County removed the case to federal court, and followed with a motion to dismiss on the usual grounds - takings case filed too early (ripeness) and lack of standing. The district court agreed, and dismissed the complaint. 

The Sixth Circuit rejected the Township's argument that it had not made the final decision to remove the dam. "Ordinarily" a claim that the government is physically invading property is ripe when the government invades. But that rule only applies when the remedy sought is backwards-looking (compensation), not when the owner seeks injunctive relief. An "impending physical taking could warrant injunctive relief." Slip op. at 7.

In Cedar Point Nursery, the plaintiffs sought to enjoin a local regulation that allowed union representatives to enter private property and speak to agricultural workers. Id. at 2070. The Court, treating the claim as a per se physical taking, allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with their motion for a preliminary injunction even though union representatives had never set foot on one plaintiff’s property. See id. Thus, the plaintiffs could bring suit even without experiencing a physical intrusion because the regulation allowed future physical intrusions. See id. at 2070, 2072–73. Accordingly, a claim for injunctive relief is ripe if the government has reached a final decision that will enable a future physical taking.

Id. The decision to remove the dam gave rise to two takings claim: a regulatory taking (the decision to remove), and the "inevitable demolition" that will amount to a physical taking. So if the Township reached a final decision to remove, both claims are ripe. 

The court concluded that the Township did so. That newspaper article noted the removal project is "scheduled to begin in 2022." At oral arguments, the Township's lawyer acknowledged that "the choice has been made" to remove the dam. But that doesn't mean the taking is ripe, the Township responded, adjudication must wait until the dam is actually removed. The court rejected the idea that a property owner has to wait for the Sword of Damocles to fall before trying to, you know, prevent it:

Having conceded this point, Defendants are left with one argument; until the Dam is actually removed, there is no way to know whether Barber has a viable takings claim. But this cannot be the case in the wake of Cedar Point Nursery. As the Supreme Court made clear, plaintiffs may sue for injunctive relief even before a physical taking has happened. Cedar Point Nursery, 141 S. Ct. at 2070, 2072–73.4 Barber’s claims are therefore ripe.

Slip op. at 8.

Next, the court concluded that Barber had standing because the Township's actions threatened her with injury. If the Township had not made the decision to remove yet, the injury might be too speculative. The court looked at the same facts as its ripeness analysis focusing on the Township's admission that it "planned to remove the Dam in the near future." Slip op. at 11.

One judge dissented, concluding that yes, the Township was thinking of removing the dam, but had really not actually decided to do so because "they had yet to draft - much less approve - blueprints for the project." Dissent at 14. Nor had the Township had not rounded up the money to do so. This was a municipal "hope" to remove, not an actual decision to do so:

Applying an ounce of “experience and common sense” reveals that Barber had little idea how the project, should it come to fruition, would affect her property. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Instead, her fears rested on “mere speculation and assumptions,” a far cry from the “certainly impending” injury necessary to establish standing where harm has yet to occur. Kanuszewski v. Mich. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 927 F.3d 396, 410 (6th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up) (quoting Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 409, 411 (2013)).

Dissent at 15. This was nothing "more than an abstract policy disagreement about the dam’s future." Dissent at 17.

Barber v. Charter Twp of Springfield, No. 20-2298 (6th Cir. Apr. 11, 2022)

Lawprof Saxer On Jotwell: "The Impact of Knick on Regulatory Takings and Those Pesky Lucas Exceptions"

Check this out: Pepperdine lawprof Shelley Saxer has a piece in Jotwell, "The Impact of Knick on Regulatory Takings and Those Pesky Lucas Exceptions," a review of U. Hawaii lawprof David Callies' book, "Regulatory Takings After Knick."

The review is short and to the point, so we suggest you read it. But here's a teaser:

This small but mighty book offers a concise history and understanding of takings jurisprudence as it stood before and after the Knick decision. It brings clarity to a convoluted chronicle of takings litigation and presents specific situations where litigants have asserted a total taking claim and the defense has relied on the various exceptions to Lucas.

Don't miss it.

Links From Last Week's Georgia Bar Association Eminent Domain Conference

Here are the links to the cases and other materials that we talked about last Friday at the Georgia Bar Association's annual Eminent Domain Conference. Our talk was entitled "It's the Chief Justice's Property World, We Just Live In It: National Trends in Takings, Property, & Eminent Domain," and was part of the Eminent Domain Section's (yes, the Georgia Bar has a Section entirely devoted to eminent domain!) annual conference on the topic. I was honored to have been asked to chat with this august and expert group of lawyers.

• Knick (opening back up federal courts to takings claims).
• Penn East (eminent domain and the 11th Amendment)
• Horne II (California raisins and physical invasions)
• Murr (the larger parcel issue, applied in regulatory takings cases).
• Winter (preliminary injunctions, diesel-electric submarines, and Pearl Harbor).
• The per curiam CDC eviction moratorium opinion.
• Koontz (money as property ... and exactions).
• Arkansas Game (physical invasions, again).
• Horne I (compensation isn't the only remedy for "takings").
• Brandt (easements, vel non)
• Help me help you!
• What to do when the condemnor doesn't promptly pay up.
• Abstention as the new Williamson County?
• The undivided fee rule ... constitutional?
• Whither Yee and the future of the physical occupation rule.

I look forward to future collaborations with our Georgia colleagues!

New Article: Woolhandler & Mahoney, Federal Courts and Takings Litigation, 97 Notre Dame L. Rev. 679 (2022)

A new article on takings from U. Virginia Law School profs Ann Woolhandler and Julia Mahoney in the Notre Dame Law Review, "Federal Courts and Takings Litigation." Get the pdf here.

Rather than try and summarize the piece, we're just going to cut-and-paste the highlights from the article's Introduction:

While Knick clearly expands the lower federal court role in takings claims, many questions remain. We do not know how federal courts will respond to the increase in claims—whether they will embrace a robust federal role in land use cases, or use various abstention doctrines to rein them in. While pro-regulatory and pro-property rights scholars have predictably taken sharply contrasting positions as to the appropriate federal court role post-Knick, this Article will recommend a middle-of-the-road approach, based partly on history and partly on an assessment of where the lower federal courts may most usefully contribute to the fair determination of takings claims.

...

Going forward after Knick’s overturning Williamson County, we ask: What role should the federal courts play? The demise of Williamson suggests that the federal courts may significantly increase their role in land use decisions, but it may also suggest that they will more actively use abstention doctrines to reduce Knick’s impact. We evaluate the use of Pullman and Burford abstention doctrines in takings claims, and find them inapt. We suggest an abstention doctrine specially for takings cases that would sort out cases where the federal courts are most likely to contribute to fair applications of the law. Finally, we suggest that constitutionally-based actions brought under § 1331 may be better homes for takings cases than § 1983 actions.

...

[The Article] outlines categories of claims for which lower federal court jurisdiction may be more and less warranted. Finally, it suggests that constitutional claims under the federal question statute rather than § 1983 may be a better vehicle for federal courts takings claims, Knick notwithstanding.

(footnotes omitted).

Highly recommended. [Disclosure: as noted in footnote ** of the piece, we offered our thoughts to the authors on a draft of the article.]

CA8: Ordinance Making It Really Really Hard To Reject Tenants Isn't A Physical Taking

Check out the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's opinion in 301, 712, 2103 and 3141 LLC v. City of Minneapolis, No. 20-3493 (Mar. 14, 2022), in which the court held that a Minneapolis ordinance prohibiting property owners from rejecting a prospective tenant because of the applicant's criminal, credit, or rental history isn't a taking.

The challenged ordinance "requires landlords to evaluate applicants for rental housing by either (1) 'inclusive screening criteria' or (2) 'individualized assessment.'" Slip op. at 2. That's a roundabout way of saying that a property owner cannot reject an applicant for their criminal or credit background, unless the owner first considers other "supplemental evidence" to justify why the applicant should become a tenant in spite of these problems, and notifies the tenant why this evidence isn't enough to outweigh the problems. 

The court first rejected the owners' claim that the ordinance allows third parties whom the owners don't want in their properties to physically occupy their spaces. Relying on Yee, the court concluded that the ordinance doesn't require owners to allow people to occupy their property whom the owner doesn't want there. Wait, you say, doesn't the ordinance prohibit the owner from making that call? Well, not quite according to the Eighth Circuit: yes, the owner cannot use the applicant's sketchy credentials alone as a reason to deny a tenancy, but may still deny an applicant if, after reviewing the "supplemental [mitigating] evidence" submitted by the applicant, the owner still thinks s/he doesn't want the person as their tenant. Thus, the court concluded, this isn't some kind of compelled occupation:

True, an ordinance that would require landlords to rent to individuals they would otherwise reject might be a physical-invasion taking. Regardless, the Ordinance here has an “individualized assessment” option that allows landlords to reject individuals due to undesirable criminal, credit, rental, and other history so long as they comply with the Ordinance’s procedural requirements (including considering supplemental evidence and providing a written explanation of rejection). Due to the individualized assessment option, the Ordinance is a restriction on the landlords’ ability to use their property, not a physical-invasion taking.

Slip op. at 7.

Come on, man, argued the landlords, that "individualized assessment" option isn't really an option at all, because it is really difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to go through that process. The court considered that option under Penn Central, concluding that there was no taking because the property owners didn't introduce sufficient evidence to support any of the three factors. Slip op. at 9 ("None of the Penn Central factors support a taking in this case.").

And finally, the court also rejected a substantive due process claim, concluding that that the owners here do not have a fundamental property right. Say what? Didn't the owners assert a right to exclude, and didn't Cedar Point say that was about as fundamental a property right as you can assert? Here, the Eighth Circuit reached back to its takings analysis, and concluded that the ordinance here does not infringe any right to exclude, it merely adds layers of process that a property owner must work through before s/he excludes:

This court need not address whether the right to exclude is a fundamental right under substantive due process. As discussed, the Ordinance does not infringe any right to exclude others from entering and using landlords’ property. Rather, it requires them to follow tenant-screening procedures before excluding others, including considering supplemental materials and later providing a written explanation.

Slip op. at 10. And here, it isn't really a plain-old right to exclude that is the "property." Rather, the court defined the property as "the right to exclude others from property without following tenant-screening procedures like considering supplemental materials and providing a written explanation." Slip op. at 10 (emphasis added). Having narrowly defined the property right as the right to be free of regulation, the court concluded, "[t]he landlords have not shown that such a right is 'objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.'" Slip op. at 10 (citations omitted).

That very nearly seems like a sleight-of-law to us, because if you always define the property right being asserted as the right to be free of the challenged regulation, well, you are almost never going to find that the right is "deeply-rooted" and "traditional."

Having defined the right narrowly and thus not fundamental, the court applied rational basis review. Do we need to tell you what that meant here for the due process claim?

301, 712, 2103 and 3141 LLC v. City of Minneapolis, No. 20-3493 (8th Cir. Mar. 14, 2022)

CA4: Just Comp Isn't The Only Remedy For A Taking

Here's a really short one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Not published, so even shorter than you might expect.

In Virginia Hospital & Healthcare Ass'n v. Kimsey, No. 20-2176 (Mar. 1, 2022), the court rejected the Commonwealth's argument that the sole remedy for a takings claim is just compensation.

The plaintiff challenged a statute which limited their ability to obtain reimbursement for medical services rendered to Medicaid patients, which instead keys reimbursement to the patients' diagnoses. According to the plaintiffs, this scheme leaves them holding the financial bag in situations were they render services that the statute deems avoidable because of the final diagnosis. 

The complaint alleges a regulatory taking, because the statute "denies just compensation for federally-mandated emergency services by predicating reimbursements on the final diagnosis only - and not on the services actually provided," and for reimbursing at only 1/2 the usual rate for those patients readmitted to the hospital. Slip op. at 8.

The district court dismissed, agreeing with the Commonwealth's argument that the sole remedy for a taking is just compensation, and the relief sought here - prospective injunctive relief (the way to plead around 11th Amendment limitations on damage remedies) cannot be granted. The court concluded, "[a]s long as an adequate provision for obtaining just compensation exists, there is no basis to enjoin the government's action effecting a taking." Slip op. at 10. Because they may bring an action to recover compensation, they are "foreclosed from seeking injunctive relief." Id. The court dismissed for lack of standing.

The Fourth Circuit reversed. After first acknowledging that in Knick, the Supreme Court noted that, "[s]o long as the property owner has some way to obtain compensation after the fact, governments need not fear that courts will enjoin their activities[,]" the Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiffs here are arguing that they're asking to enjoin the Commonwealth from denying compensation. That, the court concluded, is a different matter because they are not seeking to enjoin "the taking itself." Slip op. at 13.

"We're not trying to force you to pay us damages for changing the reimbursement rules, we're trying to stop you from withholding money that you should be paying us" is how the argument goes. That's a fine distinction, for sure. But one which the Ninth Circuit approved a short time ago, for example.

Here, the Commonwealth has a duty to pay the full amount (as required, the plaintiffs allege, by federal law), and the Commonwealth isn't living up to that obligation. Thus, the injunction isn't really seeking to enjoin the taking, just enjoin the failure to provide compensation. Ah, got it.

The Fourth Circuit also noted that the district court had not actually identified any alternative cause of action (the district court probably meant that the plaintiff could have sought just comp via a Virginia-law inverse condemnation lawsuit in state or federal court, but didn't actually say so).

Vacated and remanded.

Virginia Hospital & Healthcare Ass'n v. Kimsey, No. 20-2176 (4th Cir. Mar. 1, 2022) (unpub.)

2022 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain And Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Scottsdale: You Should Have Been There!

After a two-year absence in which we went remote, in the last week of last month (our usual spot on the calendar, between the playoffs and Super Bowl), we once again met in-person for the American Law Institute-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference.

Approximately 200 lawyers, judges, legal scholars, appraisers, law students, right-of-way agents, relocation experts, property owners, and other related professionals gathered in-person--yes, in-person--at the Scottsdale (Arizona) Resort at McCormick Ranch, to get reacquainted, learn stuff, and renew ties last made in-person in Nashville in 2020. In addition to the live attendance, we also welcomed about 50 remote colleagues, who joined the live webstream.

This was the 39th edition of the Conference, one of the most-established and successful conferences in the ALI-CLE stable of programs.

To those who joined us - thank you. This conference reminded us of why this program is so successful, and why we all return year-after-year.

To those of you who didn't (or couldn't) join us, here's what you missed. You need to remedy that, and come join us next year...

Our 2022 Proof of Life Photo.

Every year, as we open the program, I take to the lectern for what I call my "proof of life" photo. Our Conference ends up in some really fun, exciting places. Nashville. Palm Springs. San Diego. Austin. San Francisco. Charleston. And I want to prove to the folks back in the office that yes, we really are in the room, learning stuff. And not out enjoying all that our venues have to offer (we save that for after-hours).

In this photo, we're in the room, spread out (the Resort put us in its massive ballroom, so we had room to spare).

Thank you to our sponsors. Without your generosity, the Conference would not be as good as it is.

Lawprof Karen Bradshaw presented our keynote address on Friday, "Do Animals Have Property Rights?" with more from her recent book "Wildlife as Property Owners." Her talk was followed by a book signing, too. Interesting stuff for sure.

Our main room was nicely filled for every program. A real testament to the subjects discussed, and the quality of the faculty.

The program includes a mix of practice and substantive topics. Here, Virginia's Steve Clarke in one of the breakout rooms (also nicely filled), presenting on "Federal Court and the Daubert Challenge – How To Prepare."

But it wasn't all eminent domain, property, and CLE credits. Naturally, with the beautiful Arizona winter weather, we found time to get out-of-doors and do things. Like this intra-firm golf tournament.

Which firm prevailed? You'll have to ask them who has the bragging rights.

What was especially nice was that our sponsor tables and the ALI-CLE registration table could be outside of the presentation rooms. Love that AZ weather.

New Jersey's Tony Della Pelle and Connecticut's Dwight Merriam on "COVID-19 Takings."

Our faculty includes not only lawyers and law professors. We also have other industry professionals come and present. Here, Washington's Martyn Daniel, Texas' Kristen Bennett, and (lawyer) Alan Ackerman from Michigan speaking about "Maximizing Relocation Benefits: Understanding the Law and Regulations to Ensure Fairness."

Ah, ethics. A tough subject to cover. Especially at 8am. But Georgia's Ivy Cadle (with the obligatory "go dawgs!"), Michigan's Darius Dynkowski, and (off-screen) Virginia's Kelly Sheeran and Texas' Justin Hodge filled the room with "Ethics Jeopardy! Live."

Yeah, Justin really did go for the end zone for his role as Ethics Jeopardy! host.

We understood the situation. Our faculty, staff, and attendees came to Arizona from around the nation. Some places have opened up, others are still getting there. We minimized any risks. Spread out in a huge room, and everyone was pretty cool with the modest requirements from ALI-CLE. What was especially good was that nearly every event but the actual programming were outside. 

Another featured panel was on the Supreme Court's big decision in Cedar Point Nursery. We brought together three expert perspectives on the case and what it means for the future. "Did the Supreme Court Signal a New Direction for Property Rights in Cedar Point Nursery?" featured California's Joshua Thompson (prevailing counsel in the case), U. Virginia lawprof Julia Mahoney, and (off-camera, since he remoted in) Maryland's Matthew Littleton, who filed a government-side amicus brief in the case.

Also pictured: the moderator, some guy who writes a blog.

Colorado's Katie Gray and Nebraska's Bill Blake on "Project Abandonment: How to Position Your Client for the Fallout When Projects Don't Get Built." Really useful.

Tag swag (aka badge flair) courtesy of our Platinum sponsor.

Our two fave tags.

Outdoors at night - really nice under the lights by the fire, after a long day of CLE programming.

Hawaii's Mark Murakami teamed with Wisconsin's Smitha Chintamaneni for "Why Jurisdictional Offers Must Include an Assessment of Severance Damages."

Even our final programs each day attracted a substantial crowd, often tough to do after long days of sitting in class. A testament to the strength of the faculty and the topics. Here's the audience for "Defending the Appraisal in the Courtroom - The Insider's View."

We put speakers with competing views on these panels, to get the blood pumping and keep everyone's attention.

Saturday morning, after two full days of (great) programming, is still a tough spot for a speaker, because they have to keep us focused, and interested.

That's why we always reserve these spots for two old hands, who will keep us zeroed in. Above is California's Jim Burling, with a tour-de-force solo hour on "What Are the Top 20 Ways to Increase the Cost of Housing? The Answer May Surprise You!"

Below, Michael Berger (looking a bit like Big Brother, admittedly), who remoted in from California with his annual "Regulatory Takings Update."

Feral cats and property rights had us smiling (ask Michael about what this refers to).

Michael Berger is Watching You.

A group photo of the William and Mary Law School contingent at the Conference (minus two other WM Law colleagues who could not be there for the photo). Recent and long-time alumni, current law students, a law prof, and (fourth from left) Jim Burling who later this year will be awarded WM Law's Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize at the B-K Conference in September 2022.

A pretty good showing for the alma mater.

There was a whole lot of podcasting going on. Thanks, Infrastructure Junkies and Eminent Domain Podcast. Can't wait for the episodes you recorded.

Again, thank you sponsors!

What about next year? Usually, on the last day of a Conference, we announce the dates and the venue for the following year. This year, due to some slowdowns, ALI-CLE couldn't quite get all the requirements in place to make a formal, official announcement. As soon as we know the venue, we'll go loud here.

As for the date: same date as usual - last week of January or first week of February, depending on the football schedule (which we're trying to avoid).

Stay tuned.

 

The Circle Is Now Complete: A Sampling Of Final Paper Topics From William and Mary Law's Eminent Domain & Property Rights, And Land Use Courses

If you ever get the opportunity to teach in a law school -- either as a full-time legal scholar, or part-time as an expert adjunct practitioner -- take it if you can. You might think you know a lot about a particular subject, but there's nothing like spending time at the lectern in a law classroom in front of sharp and eager lawyers-in-training to sharpen your thoughts, and get you to truly understand a subject.

And folks calling you "professor" can evoke a smile.

But if there's one downside to the law school experience from the teacher's side of the lectern, it's grading. Especially at a law school like William and Mary that has a pretty strict mandatory curve. In upper-division courses that we handle like Eminent Domain and Property Rights Law and Land Use -- where we're dealing with some very high-level stuff and the quality of the students is uniformly high -- that makes for some hard choices at this time of year. Despite these challenges, we've wrapped up grading for the Fall 2021 Semester, and have submitted the official scores.

Although I cannot share with you the students' final papers in these classes, I don't think they would mind if I give you a sampling of the topics and titles, just so you can see how the next generation of lawyers is thinking about property, property rights, takings, land use, and environmental law (inter alia). 

Check out these titles:

• The Many Saints of Land Use Law
• The Past, Present, and Future of Richmond Affordable Housing
• What's on the Menu? - The Future of Outdoor Dining and the Tension Between Land Use and Public Health
• Could Monetary Compensation Fully Indemnify Property Owners for Idiosyncratic Values in Takings Cases?
• The Lingering Effects of the Dawes Act on Tribal Land Use
• The Dawn of Debt and Everything Else: An Examination of the Works of Michael Graeber and the Role of Eminent Domain and Property Rights
• Inflation for Land Use Control
• Agritourism in Wine Country: Analysis of Accessory Uses in Napa Valley
• Judicial Exaction of Euclidean Deference Under Koontz
• A Review of Richard Rothstein’s The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America
• What’s on the Inside Counts: Why Historical Preservation Regulations Should be Allowed to Regulate Interior Landmarks and the Issue of Public Access
• Through the Buchanan Lens: Reframing Virginia Land Use Laws
• The Case for Equal Application of RLUIPA’s Equal Terms Provision
• The Government Giveth, and the Government Taketh Away: Retroactive Application of Inter Partes Review Under the Takings Clause
• The Right to Share: Is Virginia Beach’s Regulation of Short Term Rentals a Taking under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
• The laws of nature do not recognize property rights, complicating the Commonwealth of Virginia’s adaptation to climate change
• Looking at Viniculture Through the Glass of Historic Preservation Law, or
  A Brief Wine Advocate
• Is the New York State Canal Corporation the Onceler of Upstate New York?: An Analysis of Town of Pittsford v. Power Authority of New York
• Law and Ownership as Evolving Stories: A Review of Mine!
• Incentive Zoning in New York
• The Tide is High but Norfolk's Holding on: An Analysis of Norfolk's Climate Change Adaptation Strategies and a Review of the Potential Claims in Response
• Flipping the Play: How Localities Can Use the Power of Eminent Domain to Seize Sports Franchises and Finally Stick it to Bob Irsay
• Land Use Control – Is it Important to the Average Joe?
• Re-Evaluating Bennis and Civil Forfeitures Under the Takings Clause
• The Guardian of Every Other Right - A Constitutional History of Property Rights and a Discussion on Tariffs, Redistributionism, and Capitalist Liberty
• Pipelines and Eminent Domain: A Constitutional and Environmental Analysis of Energy Takings
• Paradise Stolen: An Ethical Reexamination of Property Deprivation and the Plight of the Atakapa-Ishak Peoples of Louisiana’s Grand Bayou Indian Village
• A Flood of Pollutants: The Promises and Perils of a Regulatory-Takings Approach to the Right to a Clean Environment

And this is only a sampling.

I don't know about you, but I feel pretty good about this. I will be encouraging several of them to consider beefing up their papers and submitting them for publication.

When City Busts A Redevelopment Deal, It Might Face The Wheel (But Not For A Taking)

A developer alleged that the city didn't live up to its contractual obligations.

The city thought it would be a good place for a new headquarters for something called "Perfect Game Incorporated." The usual plans ensued, including agreements between the city, a non-profit redevelopment facilitator, and Preston Hollow, a "finance company that funds economic development projects for municipal governments and development corporations." These agreements dealt with loans by Preston to the city and the facilitator; the loans were used by the facilitator to purchase two parcels in the city for the project, with some of the money remaining in escrow subject to disbursement when certain things happened.

That's when things allegedly went awry. As the Fifth Circuit put it, "trouble ensued." Preston claimed that the facilitator insisted on disbursement, even tough it has not yet complied with the conditions. Preston sent a notice of default, and requested that the escrow company return the funds. Denials by the city and the facilitator, and back-and-forth claims and denials. Next up, federal court 1983 lawsuit. 

For a taking.

The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. In Preston Hollow Capital, LLC v. Cottonwood Dev. Corp., No. 21-50389 (Jan. 14, 2022), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court and affirmed the dismissal. Even if everything the complaint alleged was true, that does not equal a taking. The city and the facilitator were acting in their "contractual or proprietary capacity," and "[w]e decline this invitation to constitutionalize what amounts to nothing more than a contract dispute." Slip op. at 1.

The court rejected the plaintiff's main argument, that Knick changed the substantive ground rules and rejected the notion that section 1983 does not mean that all state law tort or contract actions are takings. Slip op. at 5. No, the Fifth Circuit concluded, "Knick concerns when a takings claim becomes ripe as a procedural matter -- not what constitutes a 'taking' as a substantive matter." Slip op. at 5.

Preston countered by pointing out that its contractual rights are property, and that such property is protected from uncompensated takings. Here, it argued, the money it disbursed is property (correct there), and that this property was taken when the city and the facilitator kept it. Ah, the Fifth Circuit responded, there's the rub: by what authority did the city get it, and by what authority was it allegedly (wrongfully) keeping it? That's right, the contract. "But Preston Hollow exchanged that 'pre-existing title' for various rights laid out in the Loan Agreement[,] ... so Preston Hollow cannot seriously claim that 'the right at issue is not governed by the terms of the parties' contract.'" Slip op, at 6 (citation omitted).

But we kind of guessed why the takings path was chosen here - no viable claim against the city for breach of contract under state law. Tough cookies, the Fifth Circuit concluded. Sovereign capacity is sovereign capacity, and here, when it allegedly wrongfully broke the deal with Preston, the city was employing the same authority that ever other contractual dealbreaker employs -- its private capacity power, not its governmental power:

But even if it were true that there were no contractual or other claims under state law that Preston Hollow might have pursued against Defendants—an issue on which we of course express no position here—that does not change the fact that a government must be acting in its sovereign capacity to effect a taking.

Slip op. at 6.

Preston Hollow Capital, LLC v. Cottonwood Dev. Corp., No. 21-50389 (5th Cir. Jan. 14, 2022)

Links And Materials From Today's Land Use Institute Takings/Eminent Domain Session

LUI Co-Chair Prof. Frank Schnidman introducing the faculty

Here are the links to the cases and issues that we just finished speaking about at the 35th Annual Land Use Institute (more information on the LUI here). Today was day 1 of a multi-day remote program and the sessions are available ala carte, so there's still time to join in and learn.

Supreme Court

• Cedar Point Nursery: the Supreme Court affirms the "keep out" vibe in property law. Yes, there are three "exceptions" to the presumption that any physical intrusion into property is a taking (torts, entries allowed under "background principles," and legal exactions), but overall a very strong affirmation of property rights.
• Pakdel v. San Francisco: the "final decision" ripeness requirement in takings cases is "relatively modest" and turns on "de facto" readiness. Yes, it's a technical requirement, but let's not get too technical about it.
• PennEast Pipeline Co., LLC v. New Jersey: federal eminent domain -- even when delegated to a private actor under the Natural Gas Act, trumps a state's 11th Amendment immunity. Bottom line for us: the Court did not mess up eminent domain law.
• Alabama Ass'n of Realtors v. Dep't of Health and Human Svcs.: in striking down the CDC's eviction moratorium, the Court leaves a few tantalizing takings clues.
• Eychaner v. City of Chicago: the Supreme Court comes this close to deciding whether to overrule Kelo.

Regulatory Takings/Inverse Condemnation

• Andrews v. Mentor: the Sixth Circuit distinguishes between due process property and takings clause property.
• Alliance for Responsible Planning v. Taylor: a California appeals court concludes that a requirement that a developer pay "for all necessary road capacity improvements" is too broad and violates Nollan/Dolan.
• F.P. Dev., LLC v. Twp. of Canton: the Sixth Circuit rules that a "tree preservation" ordinance imposes an exaction in violation of Dolan's proportionality requirement.
• South Grande View Dev. Co. v. City of Alabaster: the Eleventh Circuit affirms a Penn Central jury verdict for a rezoning that resulted in an 86% loss of value.
• Yawn v. Dorchester County: the Fourth Circuit rejects a trial court ruling that dismissed a takings claim because the government action was a valid exercise of its emergency police power.
• Ray v. City of Rock Hill: the South Carolina Supreme Court concludes that a city reconnecting a stormwater pipe that previously flooded (that causes more flooding" is the "affirmative, positive, aggressive act" required to trigger inverse condemnation.
• Michael M. Berger, "Whither Regulatory Takings," 51 Urb. Law. 171 (2021): a must-read.

Eminent Domain - Just Compensation

• City of West Chicago v. Pietrobon (unpublished): a taking for a public road violates the public use/necessity requirement for two reasons: (1) the question is factual and not legal, and (2) the city had not shown the taking was part of a larger comprehensive plan.
• Christus Lutheran Church of Appleton v. Wis. Dep't of Transportation: the Wisconsin Supreme Court concludes that the DOT met its obligation to base its offer of just compensation on a "full narrative appraisal" even though the appraisal relied on did not detail the amounts it offered. It is enough that an appraisal (even an appraisal that concludes no damages) is a "fundamental ingredient" of the jurisdictional offer.
• Elpa Builders, Inc. v. State of New York: if the final compensation awarded is less than the deposit and the owner has withdrawn the deposit, the owner is liable for the difference, plus interest. Withdraw at your own risk, owners.
• Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC v. 38.00 Acres, More or Less: the Louisiana Supreme Court concludes that attorneys fees are required as part of the requirement to compensate owners for "the full extent of their loss."
• Two law journal articles on just compensation: Thomas Merrill, The Compensation Constraint and the Scope of the Takings Clause, 96 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1421 (2021), and Richard Epstein, Valuation Blunders in the Law of Eminent Domain, 96 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1441 (2021).

Thanks to all for joining us.

New Cert Petition: The Self-Executing Fifth Amendment Abrogates 11th Amendment Immunity

Here's the latest in a case we've been following (one in which we guessed from the beginning was headed where it is today).

The Zitos claim that their property was taken without compensation. They sued for compensation in federal court. Knick tells us that this is okay, right? Well, the problem for the Zitos is that they claim the State of North Carolina did the taking. And you know what that means: 11th Amendment "immunity." You can't sue a State for money in federal court without its consent. And North Carolina didn't consent.

The District Court dismissed. It concluded that it might have allowed the takings claim for compensation to proceed in federal court except that the Fourth Circuit already concluded that a federal court is barred from considering a takings claim against a state if state law recognizes a takings claim. See Hutto v. South Carolina Retirement System, 773 F.3d 536, 552 (4th Cir. 20914) ("'the Eleventh Amendment bars Fifth Amendment taking claims against States in federal court where the State's courts remain open to adjudicate such claims.").

Wait...you can't come to federal court with a takings claim if there are available state procedures for obtaining just compensation? Sounds familiar, no? Not to the Fourth Circuit, which affirmed. Read this detailed analysis of the Fourth Circuit's opinion here: "4th Circuit: State Sovereign Immunity Bars a Takings Claim in Federal Court when Remedies are Still Available in State Court." 

The court held that Knick's throwing back open the federal court door to takings claims did not address or otherwise undermine the usual 11th Amendment rule. Nor does the "self-executing nature" of the 5th Amendment's Just Compensation requirement alter that. See Zito, slip op. at 11 ("So Knick did nothing new with respect to the self-executing nature of the Takings Clause in federal court.") (footnote omitted). Yes, Knick made Fifth Amendment private property rights equal with other rights (under Williamson County, these rights were definitely treated as second-class right), but it didn't elevate private property rights and merely subjected them to the same 11th Amendment limitations on other constitutional rights. There's an exception to the usual 11th Amendment immunity states enjoy in federal court if there isn't a "reasonable, certain, and adequate" means to obtain compensation in state court. But such remedies exist, the Fourth Circuit concluded.

So now we have the cert petition, which asserts this Question Presented:

Whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s incorporation of the “self-executing” Just Compensation Clause abrogates state sovereign immunity from federal takings claims?

Disclosure: the Zitos are represented by our law firm, Pacific Legal Foundation. So we're not going to say much more about this, except to note the Summary of Argument:

The Eleventh Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s Just Compensation Clause express two of the most venerable constitutional principles in existence: sovereign immunity for states and just compensation for citizens whose property is taken for public use. These principles function independently and adequately in most cases. However, when a state takes property without compensation, sovereign immunity and the Just Compensation Clause—applicable to states through the Fourteenth Amendment—come into conflict. While the former bars a damages award, the latter positively requires it.

The Fourth Circuit’s holding that sovereign immunity is superior to the right of compensation for a taking conflicts with this Court’s jurisprudence, diminishes the Just Compensation Clause, and conflicts with the decisions of other courts, all of which justifies review.

Pet. at 12-13.

Check it out, and stay tuned.

Watch: "The Future of Regulatory Takings at the Supreme Court"

In case you missed it live, here's the recording of the recent one-hour program on "The Future of Regulatory Takings at the Supreme Court," featuring our colleagues Joshua Thompson (Pacific Legal Foundation) and Paul Utrecht (Utrecht & Lenvin, LLP), with Jim Burling (PLF) moderating.

The program discussed Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, Knick v. Township of Scott, and Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco and what might be on the horizon.

If you are a takings nerd, a must-listen.

2021 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference (Sep. 30 - Oct. 1, 2021) - Still Time To Join Us

There's still plenty of time to register and join us for the 18th Annual Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference at the William and Mary Law School, Thursday and Friday, September 30 and October 1, 2021.

Yes, you may attend in-person, or remotely. The registration fees are very reasonable, ranging from $0 (yes, free!) to $200 (go here, and click "Tickets" for the details).

This year's Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize winner is Professor Vicki Been (NYU Law). The Conference includes presentations on:

• Remembering Toby Brigham
• The Role of Empirical Research in Defining the Scope of Constitutionally Protected Property Rights: A Tribute to Been
• The Relationship between Eminent Domain and Social and Racial Injustice (this is the panel on which we'll be presenting)
• Just Compensation Issues, Changing Public Uses, and Other Recent Developments
• The Interdependence of Property and First Amendment Rights
• The Distributional Implications of Land Use Regulation

Details on the agenda and the stellar faculty here.

In our opinion, this is the best one-day academy/bench/practicing bar conference on this topic. Really good stuff.

Register here. We'd love to see you in Williamsburg later this month. Or if that's not possible, join us for all or part of the day remotely.

XXXX